MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040148353 · doi:10.1037/h0087407

Neighbourhood density effects in reading aloud: New insights from simulations with the DRC model.

2002· article· en· W2040148353 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Reynolds, Derek Besner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexiconPsychologyNeighbourhood (mathematics)Reading aloudCognitive psychologyLinguisticsLexicoReading (process)PhonologyOrthographic projectionLexical accessCognitionNatural language processingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of nine simulations with the Dual Route Cascaded (DRC) model (Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001) investigated neighbourhood density (N) effects in nonword and word naming. Two main finding emerged from this work. First, when naming nonwords there are two loci for the effect of N in the model, contrary to Coltheart et al.'s single locus explanation of what the model is doing. The early N effect involves interactive activation between the orthographic lexicon and the letter units such that high N facilitates letter identification, which in turn affects the nonlexical route. The late N effect arises from activation in the orthographic lexicon that feeds forward to the phonological lexicon and primes phonemes in the phoneme system. Second, when naming words the presence/absence of an effect of N on the Letter Units through feedback from the lexical level depends on the parameter settings. Implications and suggestions for future directions are made.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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