MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282574871 · doi:10.1017/cnj.2022.20

Second chances in antecedent retrieval: The processing of reflexives in two types of reconstruction environments

2022· article· en· W4282574871 on OpenAlexafffund
Cassandra Chapman, Keir Moulton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAntecedent (behavioral psychology)sortComputer sciencePredicate (mathematical logic)ComprehensionLinguisticsPsychologyCognitive psychologyNatural language processingInformation retrievalSocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A body of psycholinguistic research shows that structural constraints play a large role in guiding anaphora resolution in the early moments of processing (Nicol and Swinney 1989; Harris et al. 2000; Sturt 2003; Kazanina et al. 2007; Xiang et al. 2009; Chow et al. 2014). Omaki (2010) and Omaki et al. (2019) report on an interesting case where reflexives in wh-predicate fronting constructions launch a search that is not structurally guided. We further investigate this phenomenon, by asking whether non-structurally guided retrievals of this sort result in comprehenders ever committing to ungrammatical antecedents, perhaps as a ‘lingering’ interpretation of the sort found with garden path sentences (Christianson et al. 2001; Ferreira et al. 2001; Slattery et al. 2013). In two forced-choice studies, we find evidence that ungrammatical dependencies resulting from a non-structural search are sometimes maintained in offline comprehension, particularly with a more demanding task. We then probe the incremental processing that follows non-structurally guided retrieval, asking if and when the processor initiates a renewed search. In a self-paced reading experiment, we show that the processor continues its search for an antecedent very soon after retrieving a non-structurally guided antecedent. Surprisingly, however, we found a similar processing profile in cases where a structurally licensed antecedent was already encountered. While it has been recently shown that cataphoric pronouns persist in an antecedent search after a failed retrieval (Giskes and Kush 2021), our results suggest that when reflexives locate a preceding antecedent – by either a structural or non-structural search – this does not terminate further consideration of a different dependency. We consider these data in light of the comparison between cataphoric elements and wh-fillers in launching an active search to complete a dependency.

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)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistiqueSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207