MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The prosody of questions in natural discourse

2002· article· en· W135244556 on OpenAlex
Nancy Hedberg, Juan Manuel Sosa

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsodyNatural (archaeology)Computer scienceLinguisticsNatural language processingNatural languageArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For this paper, we examined a corpus of 73 wh-questions and yes/no questions, both positive and negative, from natural discourse.We found that the locus of interrogation (the initial auxiliary in yes/no questions or the initial wh-word in whquestions) most frequently gets an L+H* pitch accent, especially in wh-questions and negative yes/no questions.Positive yes/no questions are more variable, and included 40% unstressed auxiliaries.Nuclear stress was primarily falling in wh-questions, as expected; but positive yes/no questions were almost twice as often falling or level as rising, contrary to expectation.Finally, the topic of the question turned out to be marked primarily with some version of an H* accent rather than an L+H* accent, and the focus with L+H* rather than some variant of H*, contrary to predictions in the literature.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207