MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041678672 · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/068)

Effects of Category and Rhyme Decisions on Sentence Production

2002· article· en· W2041678672 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRhymePsychologySentenceProduction (economics)LinguisticsCognitive psychologyPoetryEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present experiment was to investigate differences between persons who stutter and persons who do not stutter during the production of sentences in a single task versus two dual-task conditions. Participants were required to form a sentence containing 2 unrelated nouns. In dual-task conditions, rhyme and category decisions were used as secondary tasks. The results for 14 adults who stutter and 16 adults who do not stutter are reported. Dependent variables were the number of correct rhyme and category decisions, decision latencies, length, number of propositions, sentence latency, speech rate of sentences, disfluencies, and stuttering rates. The results indicated that both groups reduced the average number of correct rhyme and category decisions when this task was performed concurrently with sentence generation and production. Similarly, the 2 groups of participants did not differ with respect to the correctness and latency of their decisions. Under single-task conditions the sentences of both groups had a comparable number of propositions. But under dual- as compared with single-task conditions persons who stutter significantly reduced the number of propositions whereas persons who do not stutter did not show a significant dual- versus single-task contrast. Experimental conditions did not significantly influence stuttering rates. These results suggest that persons who stutter require more processing capacity for sentence generation and articulation than persons who do not stutter and that both groups keep stuttering rates at a constant level by adjusting the number of propositional units of their linguistic productions. The results support the view that the organization of the speech-production system of persons who stutter makes it more vulnerable to interference from concurrent attention-demanding semantic tasks.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.314 · 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