An ultrasound study of Canadian French rhotic vowels with polar smoothing spline comparisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an acoustic and articulatory study of Canadian French rhotic vowels, i.e., mid front rounded vowels /ø œ̃ œ/ produced with a rhotic perceptual quality, much like English [ɚ] or [ɹ], leading heureux, commun, and docteur to sound like [ɚʁɚ], [kɔmɚ̃], and [dɔktaɹʁ]. Ultrasound, video, and acoustic data from 23 Canadian French speakers are analyzed using several measures of mid-sagittal tongue contours, showing that the low F3 of rhotic vowels is achieved using bunched and retroflex tongue postures and that the articulatory-acoustic mapping of F1 and F2 are rearranged in systems with rhotic vowels. A subset of speakers' French vowels are compared with their English [ɹ]/[ɚ], revealing that the French vowels are consistently less extreme in low F3 and its articulatory correlates, even for the most rhotic speakers. Polar coordinates are proposed as a replacement for Cartesian coordinates in calculating smoothing spline comparisons of mid-sagittal tongue shapes, because they enable comparisons to be roughly perpendicular to the tongue surface, which is critical for comparisons involving tongue root position but appropriate for all comparisons involving mid-sagittal tongue contours.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".