Working Memory and High-Level Text Comprehension Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction of a coherent text mental representation demands multiple comprehension processes such as the activation and maintenance of the most important ideas of the text, the retrieval of related information from long-term memory, the generation of information that has not been explicitly mentioned (e.g., inference making), the detection of possible inconsistencies, that is, , comprehension monitoring,, as well as the suppression of no longer relevant information (i.e., updating information). Although it is well known that working memory is essential for language comprehension, it is less clear how individual differences in working memory might explain high-level comprehension processes such as inference making, monitoring, and updating information. In the present chapter, we review some of the literature showing how these cognitive processes are supported by working memory during online comprehension in the first and second language. Overall, working memory is especially necessary when text comprehension requires updating of the situation model, by inhibiting no longer relevant competing information in the native language. In contrast, a more complex pattern results from text comprehension in a second language
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".