| Title |
Noun–noun combination: Meaningfulness ratings and lexical statistics for 2,160 word pairs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-012-0256-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William W. Graves, Jeffrey R. Binder, Mark S. Seidenberg |
| Abstract |
The combining of individual concepts to form an emergent concept is a fundamental aspect of language, yet much less is known about it than about processing isolated words or sentences. To facilitate research on conceptual combination, we provide meaningfulness ratings for a large set of (2,160) noun-noun pairs. Half of these pairs (1,080) are reversed versions of the other half (e.g., SKI JACKET and JACKET SKI), to facilitate the comparison of successful and unsuccessful conceptual combination independently of constituent lexical items. The computer code used for obtaining these ratings through a Web interface is provided. To further enhance the usefulness of this resource, ancillary measures obtained from other sources are also provided for each pair. These measures include associate production norms, contextual relatedness in terms of latent semantic analysis distance, total number of letters, phrase-level usage frequency, and word-level usage frequency summed across the words in each pair. Results of correlation and regression analyses are also provided for a quantitative description of the stimulus set. A subset of these stimuli was used to identify neural correlates of successful conceptual combination Graves, Binder, Desai, Conant, & Seidenberg, (NeuroImage 53:638-646, 2010). The stimuli can be used in other research and also provide benchmark data for evaluating the effectiveness of computational algorithms for predicting meaningfulness of noun-noun pairs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 17% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 41% |
| Linguistics | 6 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2020.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,293
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,216
of 191,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 191,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.