MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062908667 · doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.715654

Processing of syllables during handwriting: Effects of graphomotor constraints

2012· article· en· W2062908667 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllableHandwritingConstraint (computer-aided design)PsychologyLinguisticsWord (group theory)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The processing of syllables during the writing of isolated words has been shown to occur either before or during the writing of the word containing them. To demonstrate that this difference is related to graphomotor constraints, participants copied bi- and trisyllabic words three times, in four conditions where graphomotor constraints were gradually increased. As expected, latencies were only affected by syllable number in the low-constraint condition. In all four conditions, interletter intervals at syllable boundaries were longer than intrasyllabic interletter intervals. The difference between inter- and intrasyllabic intervals increased with the level of graphomotor constraint. Taken together, these findings indicate that under low graphomotor-constraint conditions, all the syllable processing takes place prior to the writing of a word, whereas under higher graphomotor-constraint conditions, syllable processing is more sequential, each syllable being processed just before it is written.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.351 · 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