MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887851256 · doi:10.1037/xhp0000573

Effects of lexical ambiguity on perception: A test of the label feedback hypothesis using a visual oddball paradigm.

2018· article· en· W2887851256 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Olessia Jouravlev, Alexander Taikh, Debra Jared

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAmbiguityOddball paradigmMismatch negativityPerceptionPsychologyCognitive psychologyVisual perceptionPsycINFOArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceElectroencephalographyEvent-related potentialNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

referring to the animal and the sports equipment). In both experiments comparison images were similar to each of the critical images but they did not share a label. A reduced deviant-related negativity (DRN) was observed for critical images compared with comparison images in both experiments, suggesting that the critical image pairs were perceived as less distinct than comparison pairs. These results extend previous research using the visual oddball paradigm that has shown that images from the same conceptual category are perceived as more distinct when they have different labels, and provide further support for the label-feedback hypothesis (Lupyan, 2012) in which language is assumed to modulate perception online. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicCategorization, perception, and languageFrench-language works237,207