Reversal or no reversal, that is the question – A conceptual replication of cross-cultural spatial-numerical associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading direction strongly shapes spatial–numerical associations (SNAs), yet findings from right-to-left (RL) readers have been inconsistent. Shaki et al. (2009) offered the only controlled cross-cultural comparison of word and digit reading directions, reporting canonical SNAs in Canadian left-to-right (LR) readers, absent SNAs in Hebrew mixed-direction readers, and reversed SNAs in Palestinian consistent RL readers. Later studies with similar populations yielded mixed outcomes, possibly due to uncontrolled bilingualism, varying directional habits, and culturally influenced spatial routines. The present study conducts a preregistered replication of Shaki et al. (2009) using an improved go/no-go task and documenting object- and finger-counting preferences. Testing LR German, mixed-direction Israeli, and RL Palestinian adults (n = 39 each) will clarify whether culturally transmitted directional habits reliably produce reversed SNAs.
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 | 0.012 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".