Long-lag repetition priming in natural text reading
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most of the empirical evidence that lays the ground for research on recognition of printed morphologically complex words comes from experimental paradigms employing morphological priming, e.g., exposure to morphologically related forms. Furthermore, most of these paradigms rely on context-less presentation of isolated words. We examined whether well-established morphological priming effects (i.e., faster recognition of a word preceded by a morphologically related word) are observable under more natural conditions of fluent text reading. Using the GECO database of eye-movements recorded during the reading of a novel, we examined the long-lag morphological and identity priming in one’s first language (L1, English and Dutch) or second language (L2, English). While the effects of identity priming were ubiquitous, no evidence of morphological priming was observed in the L1 or L2 eye-movement record. We discuss implications of these findings for ecological validity and generalizability of select current theories of morphological 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it