Grammaticality is inferred from global similarity: A reply to Kinder (2010)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jamieson and Mewhort (2009b) proposed an account of performance in the artificial-grammar judgement-of-grammaticality task based on Hintzman's (1986) model of retrieval, Minerva 2. In the account, each letter is represented by a unique vector of random elements, and each exemplar is represented by concatenating its constituent letter vectors. Although successful in simulating several experiments, Kinder (2010) showed that the model fails for three selected experiments. We track the model's failure to a constraint introduced by concatenating letter vectors to construct the exemplar representation. To fix the problem, we use a holographic representation. Holographic representation not only provides the flexibility missing with the concatenation scheme but also acknowledges variability in what subjects notice when they inspect training exemplars. Armed with holographic representations, we show that the model successfully captures the three problematic data sets. We argue for retrospective accounts, like the present one, that acknowledge subjects' skill in drawing unexpected inferences based on memory of studied items against prospective accounts that require subjects to learn statistical regularities in the training set in anticipation of an undefined classification test.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".