On the joint effects of repetition and stimulus quality in lexical decision: Looking to the past for a new way forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments investigated the joint effects of stimulus quality and repetition in the context of lexical decision. Experiment 1 yielded an interaction between repetition and stimulus quality for words (but additive effects for nonwords) when the lag was short, replicating previous reports. Experiment 2, with a much longer lag than Experiment 1, yielded main effects of stimulus quality and repetition, but these factors no longer interact. The joint effects of stimulus quality and repetition for words as a function of lag can be understood in terms of two loci for repetition effects: one short-term and one long-term. The transient effect of repetition is on activation levels in the lexicons (and in which the input lexicon, but not beyond, is affected by stimulus quality), whereas the long-term effect is on the strength of two-way connections between lexical-lexical and lexical-semantic modules. These data and others, taken together with the account, provide a new way of thinking about a 30-year-old conundrum.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".