Grammaticality is inferred from global similarity: A reply to Kinder (2010)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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 it