Moment-By-Moment Reading of Proverbs in Literal and Nonliteral Contexts
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
To date there has been very little research that has examined on-line reading of proverbs. This is surprising given that proverbs offer a unique opportunity to examine how different sources of information combine to constrain the resolution of statements that are ambiguous between a literal and nonliteral interpretation. The purpose of this research was to examine whether context plays an immediate role in constraining the meaning of a proverbial statement, or whether contextual effects come into play at a later stage of processing. Two self-paced moving window studies demonstrated that (a) context influenced resolution of the ambiguous meanings during the act of reading the proverb for both familiar and unfamiliar proverbs; (b) familiar proverbs are read more rapidly than unfamiliar proverbs, an effect that begins to emerge as early as the second word of the trope; and (c) whereas the reading times indicate that ambiguity in comprehension is resolved by the end of the sentence for familiar proverbs, for ...
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 | 0.000 | 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