MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102145000 · doi:10.1111/tops.12092

The Influence of Bodily Experience on Children's Language Processing

2014· article· en· W2102145000 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

VenueTopics in Cognitive Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyReferentReading (process)Word (group theory)Developmental psychologyAudiologyLinguisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Body-Object Interaction (BOI) variable measures how easily a human body can physically interact with a word's referent (Siakaluk, Pexman, Aguilera, Owen, & Sears, ). A facilitory BOI effect has been observed with adults in language tasks, with faster and more accurate responses for high BOI words (e.g., mask) than for low BOI words (e.g., ship; Wellsby, Siakaluk, Owen, & Pexman, ). We examined the development of this effect in children. Fifty children (aged 6-9 years) and a group of 21 adults completed a word naming task with high and low BOI words. Younger children (aged 6-7 years) did not show a BOI effect, but older children (aged 8-9 years) showed a significant facilitory BOI effect, as did adults. Magnitude of children's BOI effect was related to age as well as reading skills. These results suggest that bodily experience (as measured by the BOI variable) begins to influence visual word recognition behavior by about 8 years of age.

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)0.000
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 score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.345 · 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