Everything is Psycholinguistics: Material and Methodological Considerations in the Study of Compound Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Compound words allow us to investigate lexical storage, retrieval, and interpretation. The role of storage and computation in compound processing is reviewed. It is claimed that morphological processing is automatic and obligatory, and that multi-morphemic words require resolution of a conflict between whole-word and constituent activation. This leads to the conclusion that morphological constituents are created through morphological processing so that strawberry comes to be composed of straw- and -berry ; these constituents are positionally bound so that berry-, -berry , and berry are distinct processing units. This proliferation of morphological representations resolves long-standing puzzles concerning semantic transparency and challenges traditional psycholinguistic approaches that investigate the effect of some independent variable (such as semantic transparency) on task performance as a dependent variable. It is suggested that psycholinguistic inquiry may be understood as the study of the correlation of dependent variables within the language processing system.
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 | 0.181 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".