ArticleBehavior research methods2024
A corpus of Chinese word segmentation agreement.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aging Reduces the Efficiency of Parafoveal Lexical Activation During Chinese Sentence Reading.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Reading fluency and word segmentation agreement modulate the benefits of word boundary cues for older readers in traditional Chinese.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- The Influence of Contextual Predictability on Word Segmentation in Chinese Reading: An Eye-Tracking Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The usage of a transformer based and artificial intelligence driven multidimensional feedback system in english writing instruction.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The absence of explicit word boundaries is a distinctive characteristic of Chinese script, setting it apart from most alphabetic scripts, leading to word boundary disagreement among readers. Previous studies have examined how this feature may influence reading performance. However, further investigations are required to generate more ecologically valid and generalizable findings. In order to advance our understanding of the impact of word boundaries in Chinese reading, we introduce the Chinese Word Segmentation Agreement (CWSA) corpus. This corpus consists of 500 sentences, comprising 9813 character tokens and 1590 character types, and provides data on word segmentation agreement at each character position. The data revealed a high level of overall segmentation agreement (92%). However, participants disagreed on the position of word boundaries in 8.96% of the cases. Moreover, about 85% of the sentences contained at least one ambiguous word boundary. The character strings with high levels of disagreement were tentatively classified into three categories, namely the morphosyntactic type (e.g., "-"), modifier-head type (e.g., "-"), and others (e.g., "-"). Finally, the agreement scores also significantly influenced reading behaviors, as evidenced by analyses with published eye movement data. Specifically, a high level of disagreement was associated with longer single fixation durations. We discuss the implications of these results and highlight how the CWSA corpus can facilitate future research on word segmentation in Chinese reading.
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.