MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127420818 · doi:10.1002/hbm.21146

Who was the agent? The neural correlates of reanalysis processes during sentence comprehension

2011· article· en· W2127420818 on OpenAlexafffund
Masako Hirotani, Michiru Makuuchi, Shirley‐Ann Rüschemeyer, Angela D. Friederici

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSentenceComprehensionSentence processingPsychologyNounSyntaxMeaning (existential)LinguisticsNatural language processingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sentence comprehension is a complex process. Besides identifying the meaning of each word and processing the syntactic structure of a sentence, it requires the computation of thematic information, that is, information about who did what to whom. The present fMRI study investigated the neural basis for thematic reanalysis (reanalysis of the thematic roles initially assigned to noun phrases in a sentence) and its interplay with syntactic reanalysis (reanalysis of the underlying syntactic structure originally constructed for a sentence). Thematic reanalysis recruited a network consisting of Broca's area, that is, the left pars triangularis (LPT), and the left posterior superior temporal gyrus, whereas only LPT showed greater sensitivity to syntactic reanalysis. These data provide direct evidence for a functional neuroanatomical basis for two linguistically motivated reanalysis processes during sentence comprehension.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207