When more is more: effect of context and stimulus set size on orthographic learning
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
Orthographic learning was measured over two experiments after adults trained words written with unfamiliar symbols. Participants were randomly assigned to read a set of either 24 or 86 target words, both in context and in isolation. Training took place over six trials, followed by delayed reading and spelling post-tests. Reading in context consistently bolstered reading accuracy during and after training. In contrast, the highest spelling scores were noted following reading in isolation. The number of words to be learned (stimulus set size) moderated the effects of isolation training. Self-teaching a large set of diverse words in isolation increased reading accuracy, closing the gap with context. Overall, training in context helped establish orthographic representations that were good enough to support reading accuracy, especially when training with a small set of words. Whereas, reading in isolation refined orthographic representations to be precise enough to support later spelling accuracy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it