MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050184024 · doi:10.1037/h0087374

Multiplication by eye and by ear for Chinese-speaking and English-speaking adults.

2001· article· en· W2050184024 on OpenAlex
Jo‐Anne LeFevre, Qingwen Lei, Brenda L. Smith‐Chant, Dawn B. Mullins

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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOperandMultiplication (music)IntrusionArabic numeralsEchoic memoryArithmeticAudiologyLinguisticsCognitionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English-speaking (n = 32) and Chinese-speaking adults (n = 32) solved single-digit multiplication problems. In one condition, problems were presented as visual digits (e.g., 8 x 9). In the other condition, problems were presented as auditory number words in the participant's first language (e.g., /eit/ /taimz/ /nain/). Chinese-speaking adults made proportionately more operand-intrusion errors (e.g., 4 x 8 = 24) than English-speaking adults. Both groups made more operand-intrusion errors with auditory than with visual presentation. These findings are similar to those found when participants solve problems presented as visual number words (e.g., eight x nine), suggesting that in both cases the activation of phonological codes interferes with processing.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.298 · 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