Effect of prosody on word list recall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the effects of prosody on serial recall. Serial recall is an experimental task commonly used to evaluate the capacity of short-term memory. The Working Memory model by Baddeley and Hitch is a theoretical framework that describes the inner operation of short-term memory. Its hierarchies are supported by empirical evidence, but details of the core mechanisms remain unclear. In an attempt to refine the framework, this thesis investigated prosody as a factor in serial recall accuracy. Two behavioural experiments were conducted on native speakers of Canadian English. In the first experiment, the explicit awareness of word stress was examined. Results showed a main effect of word stress type, where iambic words received higher stress identification scores compared to trochaic words. In the second experiment, an immediate serial recall task was used to examine serial recall of word lists. The lists consisted of disyllabic words from Canadian English sources. The lists had mixed or uniform stress patterns. A main effect of list stress patterns was found, where mixed lists elicited better recall of the order of list items compared to uniform lists. Overall, the present thesis offers a new interpretation on how word stress is represented in the short-term memory. It adds support to the proposed interaction between short-term and long-term memory.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".