Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32333125›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2020

Core features: measures and characterization for different languages.

Leticia Vivas, Maria Montefinese, Marianna Bolognesi, Jorge Vivas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Leticia VivasUNMDP, CONICET, Psychology Faculty, Basic and Applied Psychology and Technology Institute (IPSIBAT), Funes 3250, CP 7600, Mar del Plata, Argentina. lvivas@mdp.edu.ar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5295-8742
Maria MontefineseDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 12, 35131, Padua, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7685-1034
Marianna BolognesiFaculty of Languages, Literatures and Modern Cultures, University of Bologna, Via Cartoleira 5, Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3292-8968
Jorge VivasUNMDP, CONICET, Psychology Faculty, Basic and Applied Psychology and Technology Institute (IPSIBAT), Funes 3250, CP 7600, Mar del Plata, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8648-2562

Funding

Arts and Humanities Research Council Creative Multilingualism research programEuropean Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research 702655Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica PICT 2015-0983Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata 15/H222University of Padua SID 2018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the feature-based view of semantic representation, concepts can be represented as distributed networks of semantic features, which contribute with different weights to determine the overall meaning of a concept. The study of semantic features, typically collected in property generation tasks, is enriched with measures indicating the informativeness and distinctiveness of a given feature for the related concepts. However, while these measures have been provided in several languages (e.g. Italian, Spanish and English), they have hardly been applied comparatively across languages. The purpose of this paper is to investigate language-related differences and similarities emerging from the semantic representation of aggregated core features. Features with higher salience for a set of concrete concepts are identified and described in terms of their feature type. Then, comparisons are made between domains (natural vs. artefacts) and languages (Italian, Spanish and English) and descriptive statistics are provided. These results show that the characterization of concrete concepts is overall fairly stable across languages, although interesting cross-linguistic differences emerged. We will discuss the implications of our findings in relation to the theoretical paradigm of semantic feature norms, as well as in relation to speakers' mutual understanding in multilingual settings.

Indexed as

LanguageMultilingualismHumansItalyLinguisticsSemanticsConceptual representationFeature listing taskSemantic features

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.