Virtual experiments in megastudies: A case study of language and emotion
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
A recent dramatic increase in the number and scope of chronometric and norming lexical megastudies offers the ability to conduct virtual experiments-that is, to draw samples of items with properties that vary in critical linguistic dimensions. This paper introduces a bootstrapping approach, which enables testing of research hypotheses against a range of samples selected in a uniform, principled manner and evaluates how likely a theoretically motivated pattern is in a broad distribution of possible outcome patterns. We apply this approach to conflicting theoretical and empirical accounts of the relationship between the psychological valence (positivity) of a word and its speed of recognition. To this end, we conduct three sets of multiple virtual experiments with a factorial and a regression design, drawing data from two lexical decision megastudies. We discuss the influence that criteria for stimuli selection, statistical power, collinearity, and the choice of dataset have on the efficacy and outcomes of the bootstrapping procedure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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