ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Concreteness ratings for 36,000 Estonian words.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are 7-point Likert scales preferable to 5-point scales in language research?Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Child-Directed Speech Is Semantically Constrained: Evidence From Metaphoricity and Concreteness.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- A multimodal transformer-based tool for automatic generation of concreteness ratings across languages.Communications psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We present a collection of concreteness ratings for 35,979 words in Estonian. The data were collected via a web application from 2278 native Estonian speakers. Human ratings of concreteness have not been collected for Estonian beforehand. We compare our results to Aedmaa et al. (2018), who assigned concreteness ratings to 240,000 Estonian words by means of machine learning. We show that while these two datasets show reasonable correlation (R = 0.71), there are considerable differences in the distribution of the ratings, which we discuss in this paper. Furthermore, the results also raise questions about the importance of the type of scale used for collecting ratings. While most other datasets have been compiled based on questionnaires entailing five- or seven-point Likert scales, we used a continuous 0-10 scale. Comparing our rating distribution to those of other studies, we found that it is most similar to the distribution in Lahl et al. (Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 13-19, 2009), who also used a 0-10 scale. Concreteness ratings for Estonian words are available at OSF .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.