Counter-Text as a Tool of Psycholinguistic Diagnosing Comprehension of Foreign Language Utterance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research built on the anthropological approach to text comprehension links philosophical and psycholinguistic perspectives of speech perception. The article analyzes the factors influencing adequate comprehension when perceiving foreign language oral speech, in terms of testees’ approximately similar level of language competence and linguo-psychic characteristics. The object of research is counter-texts defined as those fixed in written form samples of а recipient’s internal speech emerging in the process of perceiving utterances. A counter-text reveals intertextual links between two pictures of the world – the author’s and recipient’s ones, wherein a new formation is a projection of a recipient’s consciousness on the initial text. Using the technique of counter-textual analysis, we were able to ascertain students’ individual strategies of understanding instrumental in adequate comprehending foreign language utterance. These strategies are retelling, translation and assertion, i.e. the ones that fix in recipient’s consciousness sense knots of the utterance for further cognitive processing. It has been established that understanding is marked by a small number of deviations from the author’s idea when, firstly, a recipient has a rather wide cultural scope, which provides points of coincidence of dominant knots of the communicant and recipient, and, secondly, he or she has verbal thinking. The received data also bears evidence to the fact of negative impact of creative thinking mechanisms that can distort the initial sense of the utterance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it