MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997068654 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2019.105091

A neuroimaging dataset on orthographic, phonological and semantic word processing in school-aged children

2020· article· en· W2997068654 on OpenAlexaff
Marisa N. Lytle, Tali Bitan, James R. Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsNeuroimagingPhonologyWord (group theory)Natural language processingComputer scienceOrthographic projectionLinguisticsPsychologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we describe the public neuroimaging and behavioral dataset entitled "Cross-Sectional Multidomain Lexical Processing" available on the OpenNeuro project (https://openneuro.org). This dataset explores the neural mechanisms and development of lexical processing through task based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of rhyming, spelling, and semantic judgement tasks in both the auditory and visual modalities. Each task employed varying degrees of trial difficulty, including conflicting versus non-conflicting orthography-phonology pairs (e.g. harm - warm, wall - tall) in the rhyming and spelling tasks as well as high versus low word pair association in the semantic tasks (e.g. dog - cat, dish - plate). In addition, this dataset contains scores from a battery of standardized psychoeducational assessments allowing for future analyses of brain-behavior relations. Data were collected from a cross-sectional sample of 91 typically developing children aged 8.7- to 15.5- years old. The cross-sectional design employed in this dataset as well as the inclusion of multiple measures of lexical processing in varying difficulties and modalities allows for multiple avenues of future research on reading development.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207