MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945325657 · doi:10.1037/cep0000173

The influence of syntactic expectations on reading comprehension is malleable and strategic: An eye-tracking study of English dative alternation.

2019· article· en· W2945325657 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma Bridgwater, Aki-Juhani Kyröläinen, Victor Kuperman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVerbDative caseLinguisticsPriming (agriculture)ComprehensionEye trackingPsychologyAlternation (linguistics)Computer scienceCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language processing is incremental and inherently predictive. Against this theoretic backdrop, we investigated the role of upcoming structural information in the comprehension of the English dative alternation. The use of eye-tracking enabled us to examine both the time course and locus of the effect associated with (a) structural expectations based on a lifetime of experience with language, and (b) rapid adaptation of the reader to the local statistics of the experiment. We quantified (a) as a verb subcategorization bias toward dative alternatives, and (b) as distributional biases in the syntactic input during the experiment. A reliable facilitatory effect of the verb bias was only observed in the double-object datives and only in the disambiguation region of the second object. Furthermore, structural priming led to an earlier locus of the verb bias effect, suggesting an interaction between (a) and (b). Our results offer a new outlook on the utilization of syntactic expectations during reading, in conjunction with rapid adaptation to the immediate linguistic environment. We demonstrate that this utilization is both malleable and strategic. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207