Generalization from newly learned words reveals structural properties of the human reading system.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Connectionist accounts of quasiregular domains, such as spelling-sound correspondences in English, represent exception words (e.g., pint) amid regular words (e.g., mint) via a graded "warping" mechanism. Warping allows the model to extend the dominant pronunciation to nonwords (regularization) with minimal interference (spillover) from the exceptions. We tested for a behavioral marker of warping by investigating the degree to which participants generalized from newly learned made-up words, which ranged from sharing the dominant pronunciation (regulars), a subordinate pronunciation (ambiguous), or a previously nonexistent (exception) pronunciation. The new words were learned over 2 days, and generalization was assessed 48 hr later using nonword neighbors of the new words in a tempo naming task. The frequency of regularization (a measure of generalization) was directly related to degree of warping required to learn the pronunciation of the new word. Simulations using the Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, and Patterson (1996) model further support a warping interpretation. These findings highlight the need to develop theories of representation that are integrally tied to how those representations are learned and generalized. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".