Feature distinctiveness effects in language acquisition and lexical processing: Insights from megastudies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semantic features are central to many influential theories of word meaning and semantic memory, but new methods of quantifying the information embedded in feature production norms are needed to advance our understanding of semantic processing and language acquisition. This paper capitalized on databases of semantic feature production norms and age-of-acquisition ratings, and megastudies including the English Lexicon Project and the Calgary Semantic Decision Project, to examine the influence of feature distinctiveness on language acquisition, visual lexical decision, and semantic decision. A feature network of English words was constructed such that edges in the network represented feature distance, or dissimilarity, between words (i.e., Jaccard and Manhattan distances of probability distributions of features elicited for each pair of words), enabling us to quantify the relative feature distinctiveness of individual words relative to other words in the network. Words with greater feature distinctiveness tended to be acquired earlier. Regression analyses of megastudy data revealed that Manhattan feature distinctiveness inhibited performance on the visual lexical decision task, facilitated semantic decision performance for concrete concepts, and inhibited semantic decision performance for abstract concepts. These results demonstrate the importance of considering the structural properties of words embedded in a semantic feature space in order to increase our understanding of semantic processing and language acquisition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".