MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030843146 · doi:10.1037/a0022538

Dynamics of the spelling process during a copy task: Effects of regularity and frequency.

2011· article· en· W2030843146 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpellingCopyingPsychologyTask (project management)CognitionCognitive psychologyReading (process)Word (group theory)LinguisticsNatural language processingComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the time course of spelling, and its influence on graphomotor execution, in a successive word copy task. According to the cascade model, these two processes may be engaged either sequentially or in parallel, depending on the cognitive demands of spelling. In this experiment, adults were asked to copy a series of words varying in frequency and spelling regularity. A combined analysis of eye and pen movements revealed periods where spelling occurred in parallel with graphomotor execution, but concerned different processing units. The extent of this parallel processing depended on the words' orthographic characteristics. Results also highlighted the specificity of word recognition for copying purposes compared with recognition for reading tasks. The results confirm the validity of the cascade model and clarify the nature of the dependence between spelling and graphomotor processes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.282 · 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