Bibliographic record
Abstract
McKoon and Ratcliff (1992) presented a theory of mediated priming where the priming effect is due to a direct but weak relatedness between prime and target.They also introduced a quantitative measure of word relatedness based on pointwise mutual information (Church and Hanks, 1990), and showed that stimuli chosen with the measure produced graded priming effects as predicted by their theory.Using stimuli from Balota and Lorch (1986), Livesay and Burgess (1998a,b) replicated the mediated priming effect in humans, but found that in HAL, a corpus-derived semantic space (Lund et al., 1995), mediated primes were in fact further from their targets than unrelated words.They concluded from this that mediated priming is not due to direct but weak relatedness.In this paper we present an alternative semantic space model based on earlier work (Mc-Donald and Lowe, 1998).We show how this space allows a) a detailed replication of Ratcliff and McKoon's experimental results using their stimuli and b) a replication of Livesay and Burgess's human experimental results showing mediated priming.We discuss the implications for theories of mediated priming.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".