Effects of Semantic Incompatibility on Rating Response
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
Semantic incompatibility, an error in constructing measuring instruments for rating oneself, others, or objects, refers to the extent to which item wordings are incongruent with, and hence inappropriate for, scale labels and vice versa. This study examines the effects of semantic incompatibility on rating responses. Using a 2 × 2 factorial design with semantic compatibility and scale packedness as the between-subjects factors, 160 university students were randomly assigned to four treatment conditions. Analysis of their responses to a 10-item academic ability self-assessment rating scale shows a significant difference in means between positive-packed and equal-interval conditions when item wordings and scale labels are semantically compatible. The semantically compatible conditions also show smaller variability and a slightly higher internal consistency of responses than the semantically incompatible conditions. The authors conclude that when rating scales are semantically incompatible, respondents tend to ignore the scale labels, use a greater variety of strategies to generate responses, and produce less reliable responses.
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 | 0.022 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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