CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 686Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismSpeech and dialogue systems

Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language

Open access
Levinson, Stephen C., Torreira, Francisco·2015·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731PMC PMC4464110
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The core niche for language use is in verbal interaction, involving the rapid exchange of turns at talking. This paper reviews the extensive literature about this system, adding new statistical analyses of behavioral data where they have been missing, demonstrating that turn-taking has the systematic properties originally noted by Sacks et al. (1974; hereafter SSJ). This system poses some significant puzzles for current theories of language processing: the gaps between turns are short (of the order of 200 ms), but the latencies involved in language production are much longer (over 600 ms). This seems to imply that participants in conversation must predict (or 'project' as SSJ have it) the end of the current speaker's turn in order to prepare their response in advance. This in turn implies some overlap between production and comprehension despite their use of common processing resources. Collecting together what is known behaviorally and experimentally about the system, the space for systematic explanations of language processing for conversation can be significantly narrowed, and we sketch some first model of the mental processes involved for the participant preparing to speak next.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The model proposed by Levinson and Torreira has stimulated much research and its key assumptions are consistent with existing laboratory work and/or have been confirmed in targeted investigations.

    “The model proposed by Levinson and Torreira (2015) has stimulated much research and its key assumptions are consistent with existing laboratory work and/or have been confirmed in targeted investigations.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Levinson & Torreira, 2015

    Section 7.2 (page not supplied) says the proposed model is based on reported temporal latencies, and §6.4 reviews experiments consistent with early response planning. The paper does not establish that its model subsequently stimulated much research or that targeted investigations confirmed the model itself. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The fourth claim of Levinson and Torreira's model is the distinction between response planning and launching: speakers begin to prepare a response to their partner as soon as possible, but only launch it shortly before the anticipated end of the partner's turn.

    “The fourth claim of Levinson and Torreira’s model is the distinction between response planning and launching: Speakers begin to prepare a response to their partner as soon as possible, but only launch it shortly before the anticipated end of the partner’s turn.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Levinson & Torreira, 2015

  • Listeners, aka next speakers, begin to plan their utterances as soon as they have enough information to do so.

    “The third claim of Levinson and Torreira’s model concerns the timing of speech planning: Listeners, aka next speakers, begin to plan their utterances as soon as they have enough information to do so.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Levinson & Torreira, 2015

  • Levinson and Torreira (2015) report an average turn duration of 1680 ms and a median of 1227 ms based on an English corpus of telephone conversations.

    “Based on analyses of an English corpus of telephone conversations (Calhoun et al., 2010) Levinson and Torreira (2015) report an average turn duration of 1680 ms and a median of 1227 ms.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Levinson & Torreira, 2015

  • The model proposed by Levinson and Torreira (2015) implies that speakers begin to plan their utterances while listening to their interlocutor.

    “The model proposed by Levinson and Torreira (2015) implies that speakers begin to plan their utterances while listening to their interlocutor”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Levinson & Torreira, 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 85

  1. Altmann G. Kamide Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73 247– 264. 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 10585516 · DOI
  2. Bates E. D’Amico S. Jacobsen T. Székely A. Andonova E. Devescovi A. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 10 344– 380. 10.3758/BF03196494 12921412 PMC3392189 · DOI
  3. Bavelas J. B. Gerwing J. (2011). The listener as addressee in face-to-face dialogue. Int. J. Listening 25 178– 198. 10.1080/10904018.2010.508675 · DOI
  4. Beebe B. Alson D. Jaffe J. Feldstein S. Crown C. (1988). Vocal congruence in mother-infant play. J. Psychol. Res. 17 245– 259. 10.1007/BF01686358 3411533 · DOI
  5. Bögels S. Barr D. Garrod S. Kessler K. (2014). Conversational interaction in the scanner: mentalizing during language processing as revealed by MEG. Cereb. Cortex 10.1093/cercor/bhu116 [Epub ahead of print]. PMC4537451 24904076 · DOI
  6. Brady P. T. (1968). A statistical analysis of on-off patterns in 16 conversations. Bell Sys. Tech. J. 47 73– 91. 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1968.tb00031.x · DOI
  7. Buck J. Buck E. (1976). ‘Synchronous fireflies’. Sci. Am. 234 74– 85. 10.1038/scientificamerican0576-74 1273569 · DOI
  8. Calhoun S. Carletta J. Brenier J. M. (2010). The NXT-format switchboard corpus: a rich resource for investigating the syntax, semantics, pragmatics and prosody of dialogue. Lang. Resour. Eval. 44 387– 419. 10.1007/s10579-010-9120-1 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Calvert D. R. (1986). Descriptive Phonetics 2nd Edn New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publisher.
  10. Casillas M. (2014). “Taking the floor on time: delay and deferral in children’s turn taking,” in Language in Interaction: Studies in Honor of Eve V. Clark eds Arnon I. Casillas M. Kurumada C. Estigarribia B. (Amsterdam: Benjamins) 101– 114. 10.1075/tilar.12.09cas · DOI
  11. Casillas M. Frank M. C. (2013). “The development of predictive processes in children’s discourse understanding,” in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society eds Knauff M. Pauen M. Sebanz N. Wachsmuth I. (Austin, TX: Cognitive Society) 299– 304.
  12. Clayman S. (2013). “Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place,” in Handbook of Conversation Analysis eds Stivers T. Sidnell J. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell) 151– 166.
  13. Chomsky N. (1969). “Quine’s Empirical Assumptions,” in Words and Objections eds Davidson D. Hintikka J. (Dordrecht: Reidel) 53– 68. 10.1007/978-94-010-1709-1_5 · DOI
  14. Couper-Kuhlen E. (2009). “Relatedness and timing in talk-in-interaction,” in Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics eds Barth-Weingarten D. Dehé N. Wichmann A. (Leiden: Brill) 257– 276. 10.1163/9789004253223_012 · DOI
  15. Crystal T. House A. (1988). Segmental durations in connected-speech signals: current results. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83 1553– 1573. 10.1121/1.395911 7130529 · DOI
  16. De Ruiter J. P. Mitterer H. Enfield N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: a cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language 82 515– 535. 10.1353/lan.2006.0130 · DOI · Paper page
  17. de Vos C. Torreira F. Levinson S. C. (2015). Turn-timing in signed conversations: coordinating stroke-to-stroke turn boundaries. Front. Psychol. 6: 268 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00268 PMC4371657 25852593 · DOI
  18. Donders F. C. (1869). “On the speed of mental processes,” in Attention & Performance II ed. and trans. Koster W. G. (Amsterdam: North-Holland) 412– 431.
  19. Drake E. Schaeffler S. Corley M. (2014). “Articulatory effects of prediction during comprehension: an ultrasound tongue imaging approach,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production Cologne.
  20. Draper M. H. Ladefoged P. Whitteridge D. (1960). Expiratory pressures and air flow during speech. Br. Med. J. 1 1837– 1843. 10.1136/bmj.1.5189.1837 13818006 PMC1967952 · DOI
  21. Drew P. (2013). “Turn Design,” in Handbook of Conversation Analysis eds Stivers T. Sidnell J. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell) 131– 149.
  22. Duncan S. D. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 23 283– 292. 10.1037/h0033031 · DOI
  23. Duncan S. D. (1974). On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speaking turns. Lang. Soc. 2 161– 180. 10.1017/S0047404500004322 · DOI
  24. Fernald A. Zangl R. Portillo A. L. Marchman V. A. (2008). “Looking while listening: using eye movements to monitor spoken language comprehension by infants and young children,” in Developmental Psycholinguistics: On-line Methods in Children’s Language Processing eds Sekerina I. A. Fernandez E. M. Clahsen H. (Amsterdam: Benjamins) 97– 135. 10.1075/lald.44.06fer · DOI
  25. Ford C. E. Thompson S. A. (1996). “Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion,” in Interaction and Grammar eds Ochs E. Schegloff E. A. Thompson S. A. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 135– 184.
  26. Fry D. B. (1975). Simple reaction-times to speech and non-speech stimuli. Cortex 11 355– 360. 10.1016/S0010-9452(75)80027-X 1222579 · DOI
  27. Garvey C. Berninger G. (1981). Timing and turn-taking in children’s conversations. Discourse Process. 4 27– 57. 10.1080/01638538109544505 · DOI
  28. Gisladottir R. Chwilla D. Levinson S. C. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS ONE 10: e0120068 10.1371/journal.pone.0120068 PMC4368040 25793289 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Gleitman L. R. January D. Nappa R. Trueswell J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. J. Mem. Lang. 57 544– 596. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.007 18978929 PMC2151743 · DOI
  30. Goodwin C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Soc. Inq. 50 272– 302. 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x · DOI
  31. Gravano A. Hirschberg J. (2009). “Backchannel-inviting cues in task-oriented dialogue,” in Proceedings of SigDial 2009 London 253– 261.
  32. Griffin Z. M. Bock K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychol. Sci. 4 274– 279. 10.1111/1467-9280.00255 11273384 PMC5536117 · DOI
  33. Hayashi M. (2013). “Turn allocation and turn sharing,” in Handbook of Conversation Analysis eds Stivers T. Sidnell J. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell) 167– 190.
  34. Heldner M. (2011). Detection thresholds for gaps, overlaps and no-gap-no-overlaps. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130 508– 513. 10.1121/1.3598457 21786916 · DOI
  35. Heldner M. Edlund J. (2010). Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. J. Phon. 38 555– 568. 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Hick W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 4 11– 26. 10.1080/17470215208416600 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Indefrey P. Levelt W. J. M. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition 92 101– 144. 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001 15037128 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Ito K. Speer S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: eye movements during instructed visual search. J. Mem. Lang. 58 541– 573. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.013 19190719 PMC2361389 · DOI
  39. Izdebski K. Shipp T. (1978). Minimal reaction times for phonatory initiation. J. Speech Hear. Res. 21 638– 651. 10.1044/jshr.2104.638 745366 · DOI
  40. Jasnow M. Feldstein S. (1986). Adult-like temporal characteristics of mother-infant vocal interactions. Child Dev. 57 754– 761. 10.2307/1130352 3720401 · DOI
  41. Jefferson G. (1986). Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Hum. Stud. 9 153– 183. 10.1007/BF00148125 · DOI
  42. Jescheniak J. D. Levelt W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20 824– 843. 10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.824 · DOI
  43. Kamide Y. Altmann G. T. M. Haywood S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. J. Mem. Lang. 49 133– 156. 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8 · DOI
  44. Keitel A. Prinz W. Friederici A. D. von Hofsten C. Daum M. M. (2013). Perception of conversations: the importance of semantics and intonation in children’s development. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 116 264– 277. 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.06.005 23876388 · DOI
  45. Kendon A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychol. 26 22– 63. 10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 6043092 · DOI
  46. Kendrick K. Torreira F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: a quantitative study. Discourse Process. 52 255– 289. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 · DOI
  47. Kutas M. DeLong K. A. Smith N. J. (2011). “A look around at what lies ahead: prediction and predictability in language processing,” in Predictions in the Brain: Using our Past to Generate a Future ed. Bar M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 190– 207.
  48. Lerner G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences in progress. Lang. Soc. 20 441– 458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572 · DOI
  49. Lerner G. H. (2002). “Turn-sharing: the choral co-production of talk-in-interaction,” in The Language of Turn and Sequence eds Ford C. Fox B. Thompson S. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 225– 256.
  50. Levelt W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  51. Levinson S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  52. Levinson S. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  53. Levinson S. (2013). Recursion in pragmatics. Language 89 149– 162. 10.1353/lan.2013.0005 · DOI
  54. Local J. Walker G. (2012). How phonetic features project more talk. J. Int. Phon. Assoc. 42 255– 280. 10.1017/S0025100312000187 · DOI
  55. McFarland D. H. (2001). Respiratory markers of conversational interaction. J. Speech Lang. Hear Res. 44 128– 143. 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/012) 11218097 · DOI
  56. Mehl M. R. Vazire S. Ramírez-Esparza N. Slatcher R. B. Pennebaker J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science 317 82 10.1126/science.1139940 17615349 · DOI
  57. Mehler J. Sebastian N. Altmann G. Christophe A. Pallier C. (1993). Understanding compressed sentences: the role of rhythm and meaning. Paper presented at the Temporal information processing in the nervous system. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 682 272– 282. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb22975.x 8323119 · DOI
  58. Norcliffe E. Konopka A. Brown P. Levinson S. C. (2015). Word order affects the time-course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1006238 · DOI
  59. Norwine A. C. Murphy O. J. (1938). Characteristic time intervals in telephonic conversation. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 17 281– 291. 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1938.tb00432.x · DOI
  60. Pickering M. J. Garrod S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behav. Brain Sci. 36 329– 347. 10.1017/S0140525X12001495 23789620 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Pomerantz A. Heritage J. (2013). “Preference,” in Handbook of Conversation Analysis eds Stivers T. Sidnell J. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell) 210– 228.
  62. Riest C. Jorschick A. B. De Ruiter J. P. (2015). Anticipation in turn-taking: mechanisms and information sources. Front. Psychol. 6: 89 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00089 PMC4313610 25699004 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Roberts F. Margutti P. Takano S. (2011). Judgments concerning the valence of inter-turn silence across speakers of American English, Italian, and Japanese. Discourse Process. 48 331– 354. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.558002 · DOI
  64. Roberts S. G. Torreira F. Levinson S. C. (2015). The effects of processing and sequence organization on the timing of turn taking: a corpus study. Front. Psychol. 6: 509 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00509 PMC4429583 26029125 · DOI
  65. Rossano F. (2013). “Gaze in conversation,” in Handbook of Conversation Analysis eds Stivers T. Sidnell J. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell) 308– 329.
  66. Schaeffler S. Scobbie J. M. Schaeffler F. (2014). “Measuring reaction times: vocalisation vs. articulation,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production Cologne.
  67. Schegloff E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Lang. Soc. 29 1– 63. 10.1017/S0047404500001019 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Schnur T. T. Costa A. Caramazza A. (2006). Planning at the phonological level during sentence production. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 35 189– 213. 10.1007/s10936-005-9011-6 16502144 · DOI
  69. Sebanz N. Knoblich G. K. (2008). “From mirroring to joint action,” in Embodied Communication, eds Wachsmuth I. Lenzen M. Knoblich G. K. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 129– 150.
  70. Segaert K. Menenti L. Weber K. Hagoort P. (2011). A paradox of syntactic priming: why response tendencies show priming for passives, and response latencies show priming for actives. PLoS ONE 6: e24209 10.1371/journal.pone.0024209 PMC3191135 22022352 · DOI
  71. Sellen A. J. (1995). Remote conversations: the effects of mediating talk with technology. Hum. Comput. Interact. 10 401– 444. 10.1207/s15327051hci1004_2 · DOI
  72. Shipp T. Izdebski K. Morrissey P. (1984). Physiologic stages of vocal reaction time. J. Speech Hear. Res. 27 173– 178. 10.1044/jshr.2702.173 6330455 · DOI
  73. Stivers T. (2010). An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. J. Pragmatics 42 2772– 2781. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 · DOI
  74. Stivers T. Enfield N. J. Brown P. Englert C. Hayashi M. Heinemann T. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 10587– 10592. 10.1073/pnas.0903616106 19553212 PMC2705608 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Stivers T. Enfield N. J. Levinson S. C. (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: an introduction. J. Pragmatics 42 2615– 2619. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001 · DOI
  76. ten Bosch L. Oostdijk N. Boves L. (2005). On temporal aspects of turn-taking in conversational dialogues. Speech Commun. 47 80– 86. 10.1016/j.specom.2005.05.009 · DOI
  77. ten Bosch L. Oostdijk N. de Ruiter J. P. (2004). “Turn-taking in social talk dialogues: temporal, formal, and functional aspects,” in Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Speech and Computer (SPECOM 2004) Saint-Petersburg: St.Petersburg 454– 461.
  78. Tice M. Henetz T. (2011). “Turn-boundary projection: looking ahead,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds Carlson L. Hölscher C. Shipley T. (Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society) 838– 843.
  79. Torreira F. Bögels S. Levinson S. C. (2015). Breathing for answering: the time course of response planning in conversation. Front. Psychol. 6: 284 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00284 PMC4357202 25814976 · DOI
  80. Trevarthen C. (1977). “Descriptive analyses of infant communicative behaviour,” in Studies in Mother-Infant Interaction ed. Schaffer H. R. (London: Academic Press) 89– 117.
  81. Walker G. (2013). “Phonetics and prosody in conversation,” in Handbook of Conversation Analysis eds Stivers T. Sidnell J. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell) 455– 474.
  82. Weilhammer K. Rabold S. (2003). “Durational aspects in turn taking,” in Proceedings of the International Conference of Phonetic Sciences Barcelona.
  83. Wells B. Macfarlane S. (1998). Prosody as an interactional resource: turn-projection and overlap. Lang. Speech 41 265– 294. 10.1177/002383099804100403 10746359 · DOI
  84. Wilson M. Wilson T. P. (2005). An oscillator model of the timing of turn-taking. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12 957– 968. 10.3758/BF03206432 16615316 · DOI
  85. Wilson T. P. Zimmerman D. H. (1986). The structure of silence between turns in two-party conversation. Discourse Process. 9 375– 390. 10.1080/01638538609544649 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (NL)
Corresponding author
Levinson, Stephen C.
ORCID
Levinson, Stephen C.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2015-06-12
Volume
6
Pages
731-731
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731
PMC
PMC4464110
OpenAlex
W1608166496
Cited by
686
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 88 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
259.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Max Planck Instituut voor Psycholinguïstiek
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (269484)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
turn-taking, conversation, language processing, language comprehension, conversational timing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review