Didn't You Run the Spell Checker? Effects of Type of Spelling Error and Use of a Spell Checker on Perceptions of the Author
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
We investigated expectations regarding a writer's responsibility to proofread text for spelling errors when using a word processor. Undergraduate students read an essay and completed a questionnaire regarding their perceptions of the author and the quality of the essay. We manipulated type of spelling error (no error, homophone error, non-homophone error) and information provided about the author's use of a spell checker (no information, author did not use a spell checker, author did use a spell checker). Participants' perceptions of the author's abilities and the quality of the essay suffered when the essay contained non-homophone spelling errors—errors that are typically flagged by a spell checker. Further, participants reported that they would be most likely to blame the writer rather than the spell checker for spelling errors contained in the text. These findings suggest that perceptions of both an author's abilities and the written products are affected by spelling errors. Even when supportive tools are available, the responsibility for producing error-free text remains with the author.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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