MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224078729 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266359

Standardizing norms for 180 coloured Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Kannada language

2022· article· en· W4224078729 on OpenAlexaff
Shrilekha Bangalore, Holly Robson, Arlene Astell

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersFelix Scholarship
KeywordsKannadaComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents normative data in Kannada for 180 coloured Snodgrass & Vanderwart pictures. Data are presented for naming latency, image agreement, picture-name agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, and age of acquisition (AoA). Sixty-eight native Kannada speaking adults completed all tasks. The effects of the rated variables on naming latency were examined and compared with data on the same variables in other languages. A regression analysis revealed that image agreement, name agreement, familiarity, and age of acquisition all had a significant impact on naming latency, while visual complexity and frequency did not. Although, the correlations among rated variables in Kannada were equivalent to previous normative studies, the cross-linguistic comparison revealed that only AoA was strongly correlated with other studies. The findings point to the importance of understanding the interplay of psycholinguistic variables on naming latency in different languages.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207