The subjective frequency of word n-grams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When asked to think about the subjective frequency of an n-gram (a group of n words), what properties of the n-gram influence the respondent? It has been recently shown that n-grams that occurred more frequently in a large corpus of English were read faster than n-grams that occurred less frequently (Arnon & Snider, 2010), an effect that is analogous to the frequency effects in word reading and lexical decision. The subjective frequency of words has also been extensively studied and linked to performance on linguistic tasks. We investigated the capacity of people to gauge the absolute and relative frequencies of n-grams. Subjective frequency ratings collected for 352 n-grams showed a strong correlation with corpus frequency, in particular for n-grams with the highest subjective frequency. These n-grams were then paired up and used in a relative frequency decision task (e.g. Is green hills more frequent than weekend trips?). Accuracy on this task was reliably above chance, and the trial-level accuracy was best predicted by a model that included the corpus frequencies of the whole n-grams. A computational model of word recognition (Baayen, Milin, Djurdjevic, Hendrix, & Marelli, 2011) was then used to attempt to simulate subjective frequency ratings, with limited success. Our results suggest that human n-gram frequency intuitions arise from the probabilistic information contained in n-grams.
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 | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".