MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230118872 · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.28.5.858

Covert operations: Orthographic recoding as a basis for repetition priming in word identification.

2002· article· en· W4230118872 on OpenAlexaff
Michael E. J. Masson, Colin M. MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPriming (agriculture)Orthographic projectionOrthographyCovertTask (project management)PsychologyRepetition primingWord (group theory)Identification (biology)Word recognitionPerceptionCognitive psychologySpeech recognitionNatural language processingLexical decision taskComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitionReading (process)LinguisticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a word is generated from a semantic cue, coincident orthographic visualization of that word may cause priming on a subsequent perceptual identification test. A task was introduced that required subjects to visualize the orthographic pattern of auditorily presented words. When used at study, this task produced a pattern of priming similar to that produced by a generate study task. When used at test, equal priming on the orthographic task was produced by read and generate study tasks but not by a generate study task that failed to invite orthographic visualization. Priming on perceptually based word identification tests that results from a generate study episode may be largely due to orthographic recoding of the target rather than to conceptual processing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and CognitionSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207