MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414341420 · doi:10.1037/xlm0001515

Extending the maze task to Hungarian: New insights in relative clause processing.

2025· article· en· W4414341420 on OpenAlexaff
Wesley Orth, Dávid Márk Nemeskey, Eszter Ronai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelative clauseSentence processingTask (project management)SentenceLocalityWord orderPoint (geometry)Task analysisCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relative clauses are one of the most studied constructions in sentence processing research. But even as the number of investigations has grown, there still remain open questions regarding the precise sources of observed processing effects. This article contributes to this domain by adapting the maze task paradigm to Hungarian, a free word order language where memory-based and expectation-based accounts of syntactic processing make distinct predictions for the processing of relative clauses. At the point of the relative pronoun, we observe an effect that is most consistent with expectation-based accounts. At the relative clause verb, we find mixed evidence: In L-maze, we see a memory-based locality effect, while in A-maze, an expectation-driven antilocality effect emerges. These findings add to an existing body of research showing that memory- and expectation-based effects can both occur within the same linguistic structure. We additionally conclude that while the maze task is a valuable tool for increasing language diversity in sentence processing studies, the partially divergent findings between its variants warrant further research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and CognitionSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207