Why do words hurt? Content, process, and criterion shift accounts of verbal overshadowing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verbal overshadowing describes the phenomenon in which verbalisation negatively affects performance on a task related to the verbalised material. Within the verbal overshadowing literature, three accounts exist which attempt to explain this phenomenon: content, processing, and criterion accounts. The content account refers to the notion that the specific contents of verbalisation interfere with later performance, processing refers to a proposed shift in processing caused by verbalisation, and criterion deals with the possibility that verbalisation leads to a reliance on more conservative choosing. The current manuscript reviews evidence for the existing accounts, while describing advantages and disadvantages of each account and attempting to reconcile these various accounts. The authors provide a framework for understanding verbal overshadowing as caused by one unified mechanism, or several. Finally, an outline for future research is suggested that should aid in reconciling the existing accounts for verbal overshadowing.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it