MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030399736 · doi:10.1037/cjep2007032

Homophone effects in visual word recognition depend on homophone type and task demands.

2007· article· en· W2030399736 on OpenAlexafffund
Linda Kerswell, Paul D. Siakaluk, Penny M. Pexman, Christopher R. Sears, William J. Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHomophoneCategorizationCognitive psychologyPsychologyWord lists by frequencyTask (project management)CommunicationLinguisticsComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experiment examined how the characteristics of homophones and their mates influence homophone effects, as a function of task demands. Two types of homophones were presented: 1) low-frequency homophones with higher-frequency mates that are not animal names (e.g., maid--made), and 2) low-frequency homophones with mates that are, on average, of equivalent frequency and are animal names (e.g., foul--fowl). We observed a double dissociation: In the lexical decision task (LDT), there was a homophone effect for the first type of homophones but not for the second, whereas in the semantic categorization task (SCT) the opposite was true. These results suggest that in these tasks the effects of homophony arise when the homophone's mate creates competition in terms of the type of processing emphasized in the task, namely, orthographic processing in the LDT and semantic processing in the SCT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207