MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113690346 · doi:10.1037/a0020475

The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: When does relatedness matter?

2010· article· en· W2113690346 on OpenAlex
Yasushi Hino, Yuu Kusunose, Stephen J. Lupker

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

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKanjiPsychologyLexical decision taskLinguisticsCognitive psychologyLexicoCognitionChinese characters

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of the number of meanings (NOM) and the relatedness of those meanings (ROM) were examined for Japanese Katakana words using a lexical-decision task. In Experiment 1, only a NOM advantage was observed. In Experiment 2, the same Katakana words produced a ROM advantage when Kanji words and nonwords were added. Because the Kanji nonwords consisted of unrelated characters whereas the Kanji words consisted of related characters, participants may have used the relatedness of activated meanings as a cue in making lexical decisions in this experiment, artificially creating a ROM advantage for Katakana words. Consistent with this explanation, no ROM effect for Katakana words was observed in Experiment 3 when the Kanji nonwords consisted of characters with similar (i.e., related) meanings. These results pose a further challenge to the position that the speed of semantic coding is modulated by ROM for ambiguous words.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.328
Teacher spread0.308 · 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