Multisyllabic nonwords: More than a string of syllables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonword repetition is closely associated with the learning of the phonological form of novel words. Several factors influence nonword repetition performance such as short-term memory, phonotactic probability, lexical knowledge, and prosodic factors. The present study examined the influence of list duration, coarticulation, and prosody on nonword repetition by comparing naturally articulated multisyllabic nonwords to multisyllabic nonwords formed by concatenating syllables produced in isolation and serial lists (experiment 1), to multisyllabic forms that incorporated either valid or invalid coarticulatory information (experiment 2), and to multisyllabic forms either with or without common English within-word stress patterns (experiment 3). Results revealed superior recall for naturally articulated nonwords compared to lists of matched duration or sequences with invalid coarticulatory cues. Within-word stress patterns also conveyed a repetition advantage. The findings clearly establish that the coarticulatory and prosodic cues of naturally articulated multisyllabic forms support retention.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".