Towards a Standardized, Fine-grained Manual Annotation Protocol for Verbal Fluency Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a new method for annotating verbal fluency data, which allows the reliable detection of the age-related decline of lexical access capacity. The main innovation is that annotators should inferentially assess the intention of the speaker when producing a word form during a verbal fluency test. Our method correlates probable speaker inten-tions such as “intended as a valid answer” or “intended as a meta-comment” with lin-guistic features such as word intensity (e.g. reduced intensity suggests private speech) and syntactic integration. The annotation scheme can be implemented with high reliabil-ity, and minimal linguistic training. When fluency data are annotated using this scheme, a relation between fluency and age emerges; this is in contrast to a strict implementation of the traditional method of annotating verbal fluency data, which has no way of deal-ing with score-confounding phenomena because it force-groups all verbal fluency pro-ductions –regardless of speaker intention— into one of three taxonomic groups (i.e. val-id answers, perseverations, and intrusions). The traditional lack of fine-grained annota-tion units is especially problematic when analyzing the qualitatively distinct fluency da-ta of older participants and may cause studies to miss the relation between lexical access capacity and age.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.116 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".