The role of syntax in sentence and referential processing
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
How language comprehenders process the syntactic structure of sentences and, to a somewhat lesser extent, how sentence structure affects referential processing have been important questions in language comprehension research. Results from studies using the visual-world eye-tracking method have yielded important insights regarding these issues. In these studies, participants listen to sentences with varying structure (often involving ambiguity) while an eye tracker monitors their eye fixations to objects or pictures of words in the sentence. Because listeners rapidly fixate the objects/pictures in the sentence (Cooper, 1974; Allopenna, Magnuson, & Tanenhaus, 1998) and even fixate objects/pictures that are likely to be mentioned next (Altmann & Kamide, 1999), fixations to the objects/pictures can be used to inform us about how language comprehenders process sentence structure and how it affects referential processing. This chapter reviews visual-world studies that have done this.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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