MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518613197 · doi:10.3765/amp.v1i1.21

What is the domain for weight computation: the syllable or the interval?

2014· article· en· W1518613197 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aron Hirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSyllableVowelInterval (graph theory)MathematicsStress (linguistics)LinguisticsSpeech recognitionCombinatoricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The distribution of lexical stress is sensitive to the weight of rhythmic units such that heavier units more strongly attract stress. This paper addresses the question: what is the rhythmic unit relevant for weight computation? The traditional approach links weight to the <em>syllable</em>: weight is computed over the syllable rime (review in Blevins 1995), possibly with limited onset-sensitivity (Kelly 2004, Gordon 2005, Ryan 2013). I present experimental data which challenge this view, and support a recently proposed non-syllable-based alternative according to which weight is computed over the total vowel-to-vowel <em>interval</em> (Steriade 2012). Using a nonce word production paradigm, I test how likely participants are to stress the initial vs. final vowel in bi-vocalic sequences, manipulating the consonantal interlude separating the two vowels between a single C (e.g. <em>aka</em>) and CC cluster (<em>akra</em>). Initial stress is more likely with CC than C -- medial consonants contribute weight to pull stress to the initial vowel, CC contributing more weight than C. This is incompatible with syllable constituency which parses C/CC in the onset of the final syllable (<em>a.ka</em>, <em>a.kra</em>), and supportive of interval constituency which parses C/CC in the initial interval (<em>ak*a</em>, <em>akr*a</em>).</p>

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Meetings on PhonologySame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207