Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1991, 45(4), 492-506 Rereading Text: Words and Their Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Two experiments examined recent claims thai rereading benefits are mediated by abstract word-level representations (Carr, Brown, & Charalambous, 1989) and are subject to the reader's focus of attention (Carr & Brown, 1990). The effect of prior reading history was measured when readers reread a normal text and when they reread a scrambled word version of the texl. The prior reading history was either with the normal or the scrambled versions. In Experiment I readers were oriented to surface level processing by a Greek letter detection task while reading. In Experiment 2 they were oriented to message level processing by a later sum-marizing requirement. Results indicated that transfer to normal text rereading is context specific, and this specificity is resistant to influences by focus of attention. Transfer to rereading scrambled word displays is variable, usually nonspecific, and perhaps open to attentional strategy. We argue that lexical contributions to transfer while reading normal text cannot be assessed by use of measures at different linguistic levels. RESLIMK Nous avons examine dans deux experiences des propositions rcccntcs
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".