Cross-script orthographic and phonological preview benefits
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
The present experiment examined the use of parafoveally presented first-language (L1) orthographic and phonological codes during reading of second-language (L2) sentences in proficient Russian-English bilinguals. Participants read English sentences containing a Russian preview word that was replaced by the English target word when the participant's eyes crossed an invisible boundary located before the preview word. The use of English and Russian allowed us to manipulate orthographic and phonological preview effects independently of one another. The Russian preview words overlapped with English target words in (a) orthography (ВЕЛЮР [vʲɪ'lʲʉr]-BERRY), (b) phonology (БЛАНК [blank]-BLOOD), or (c) had no orthographic or phonological overlap (КАЛАЧ [kɐ'lat͡ɕ]-BERRY; ГЖЕЛЬ [ɡʐϵlʲ]-BLOOD). The results of this study showed a clear and strong benefit of the parafoveal preview of Russian words that shared either orthography or phonology with English target words. This study is the first demonstration of cross-script orthographic and phonological parafoveal preview benefit effects. Bilinguals integrate orthographic and phonological information across eye fixations in reading, even when this information comes from different languages.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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