Order processing of number symbols is influenced by direction, but not format
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study probed the cognitive mechanisms that underlie order processing for number symbols, specifically the extent to which the direction and format in which number symbols are presented influence the processing of numerical order, as well as the extent to which the relationship between numerical order processing and mathematical achievement is specific to Arabic numerals or generalisable to other notational formats. Seventy adults who were bilingual in English and Chinese completed a Numerical Ordinality Task, using number sequences of various directional conditions (i.e., ascending, descending, mixed) and notational formats (i.e., Arabic numerals, English number words, and Chinese number words). Order processing was found to occur for ascending and descending number sequences (i.e., ordered but not non-ordered trials), with the overall pattern of data supporting the theoretical perspective that the strength and closeness of associations between items in the number sequence could underlie numerical order processing. However, order processing was found to be independent of the notational format in which the numerical stimuli were presented, suggesting that the psychological representations and processes associated with numerical order are abstract across different formats of number symbols. In addition, a relationship between the processing speed for numerical order judgements and mathematical achievement was observed for Arabic numerals and Chinese number words, and to a weaker extent, English number words. Together, our findings have started to uncover the cognitive mechanisms that could underlie order processing for different formats of number symbols, and raise new questions about the generalisability of these findings to other notational formats.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".