On-line Reference Assignment for Anaphoric and Non-Anaphoric Nouns: A Unified, Memory-Based Model in ACT-R
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The computational model in present paper confirms that memory-based accounts are sufficient to account for a high rate of success at first-pass referent retrieval for anaphoric (and non-anaphoric) nouns.Because even definite noun phrases can often be non-anaphoric (e.g., Poesio & Vieira, 1998), an adequate model must account for how a reader makes an explicit or implicit decision about the anaphoric status of a noun (herein: The Anaphoric Classification Problem).We explain why we are inclined to reject the conventional intuition that: the failure to find/retrieve a referent within the discourse then, serially, leads to treating a (possibly anaphoric) noun as a new referent.Instead, we extend the memory-based account to address this classification problem.We suggest that LTM contains both generic referent types and specific referent tokens, which simultaneously compete for retrieval via resonance.The nature of what is retrieved (token vs. type) determines whether the reader effectively treats a noun as anaphoric or not.Our model predicts whether an anaphor in a given text will be misinterpreted as a new referent during first-pass processing.The influence of anaphor word choice is explained, and encompasses metaphoric anaphors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".