Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: the role of co‐activation in confronting misconceptions
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
Abstract In this paper, we investigate the effects of readers' incorrect knowledge on the on‐line comprehension processes during reading of science texts, with an eye towards examining the conditions that encourage revision of such knowledge. We employed computational (Landscape Model) and empirical (think‐aloud and reading times) methods to compare comprehension processes by readers with correct and incorrect background knowledge, respectively. Science texts were presented in either regular or refutation versions; Prior research using off‐line methods suggests that refutation versions promote revision in readers with incorrect knowledge. The results of the current study indicate that incorrect knowledge systematically influences both type and content of processing. Moreover, simultaneous activation of correct and incorrect conceptions during reading plays an essential role in knowledge revision: The computational simulations show that refutation texts create optimal circumstances for co‐activation of the incorrect and correct conceptions and the empirical data show that such a co‐activation is associated with inconsistency detection and revision activities by the readers with incorrect knowledge. These findings provide insights in the effects of misconceptions on the on‐line text processing and have important implications for the development of methods for achieving revision during reading. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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