Comprehension of possessives during eye-tracking - A comparison between younger and older adults
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
This study investigates younger and older adults’ online and offline processing during comprehension of German gender-marked possessive pronouns and determiners. Two main experiments: • Experiment 1: A visual world eye-tracking experiment on the comprehension of possessive pronouns (PossPro) • Experiment 2: A visual world eye-tracking experiment on the comprehension of possessive determiners (PossDet). • In both experiments eye-tracking is collected in a phrase-picture matching task in which participants have to select (via button press) one of four images that corresponds to an auditory stimulus. Background Assessments: • Digit span: forward and backward • Block span: forward and backward • Digit symbol substitution (DSS) test* • Definite article production task (a task where participants are asked to name a picture with a definite article and a noun) • German version of the Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment (MoCA; Nasreddine et al., 2005; Thomann et al., 2018) - older adults only • Hearing test - older adults only • Demographic questionnaire (personal details such as age, education and occupation and health-related information) *The DSS was added to our testing procedure after the start of data collecting. Thus, some younger participants do not have a DSS value.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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