MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996996658 · doi:10.1027/1618-3169.54.3.215

Reading Aloud

2007· article· en· W1996996658 on OpenAlex
Chris Blais, Derek Besner

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReading aloudPsychologyStimulus (psychology)Read aloudCognitive psychologyRepetition (rhetorical device)Reading (process)Computer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A central feature of many formal accounts of reading aloud, and of Coltheart and colleagues dual-route cascaded model in particular, is that activation across various modules is cascaded. Evidence is reviewed that this assumption is problematic in a particular context, along with a solution that involves thresholding the output of the letter level to the nonlexical routine. Consideration of the known effects of repetition leads to the prediction of a three-way interaction between stimulus quality, repetition, and lexicality in which repetition and stimulus quality interact when reading aloud exception words, but produce additive effects when reading aloud nonwords. The result of such an experiment confirms this prediction, and appears consistent with the localized dual-route model. Implications for other accounts are briefly noted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it