Tolerating Ambiguity
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
Many models of word recognition predict a lexical ambiguity disadvantage in semantic categorization tasks (SCTs). However, recent evidence suggests that an ambiguity disadvantage in SCT results from a bias in the decision-making phase of the task and not in the meaning-activation phase: Behavioral effects of ambiguity disappear when these decision biases are controlled (Pexman, Hino, & Lupker, 2004). The current study used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine the neural correlates of ambiguity in a task that produced no behavioral ambiguity effect (i.e., SCT with a well-defined decision category). Twenty healthy adults participated. Results showed that despite producing no behavioral effect of ambiguity, ambiguous words were associated with the recruitment of cortical structures implicated in top-down modulation of noisy activity (e.g., left inferior frontal gyrus) when compared to unambiguous words. These results are interpreted as evidence that multiple meanings are activated for ambiguous words in SCT.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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