Early-stage chunking of finger tapping sequences by persons who stutter and fluent speakers
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
This research note explored the hypothesis that chunking differences underlie the slow finger-tap sequencing performance reported in the literature for persons who stutter (PWS) relative to fluent speakers (PNS). Early-stage chunking was defined as an immediate and spontaneous tendency to organize a long sequence into pauses, for motor planning, and chunks of fluent motor performance. A previously published study in which 12 PWS and 12 matched PNS practised a 10-item finger tapping sequence 30 times was examined. Both groups significantly decreased the duration of between-chunk intervals (BCIs) and within-chunk intervals (WCIs) over practice. PNS had significantly shorter WCIs relative to PWS, but minimal differences between groups were found for the number of, or duration of, BCI. Results imply that sequencing differences found between PNS and PWS may be due to differences in automatizing movements within chunks or retrieving chunks from memory rather than chunking per se.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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