Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measures of orthographic typicality have long been studied as predictors of lexical access. The best-known orthographic typicality measure is orthographic neighbourhood size ( Coltheart’s N or ON ), the number of words that are one letter different, by substitution, from the target word. A more recent related measure of orthographic typicality is orthographic Levenshtein distance 20 ( OLD20 ), the average Levenshtein orthographic edit distance of a target word from its 20 closest neighbours ( Yarkoni, Balota, and Yap, 2008 ). Both measures have been implicated in lexical access. In this paper, we propose and assess a family of measures of word form similarity we call orthographic uncertainty . These measures are based on Shannon entropy ( Shannon, 1948 ), which has a long history of being considered psychologically relevant. Orthographic uncertainty measures are superior to ON and OLD20 at predicting lexical decision and naming reaction times and accuracies. They are also superior to the older measures insofar as they are naturally tied to the widely-accepted quantification using Shannon Entropy of the psychological functions of familiarity, uncertainty, learnability, and representational and computational efficiency.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".