Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: “Canadian Raising” is the process in which the low nucleus of the diphthongs /aw/ and /ay/ is raised to “mid” position before voiceless consonants. Although the process is often featured in simple stereotypes of Canadian speech (e.g. “oot” and “aboot” for out and about), it is in reality a far more complex phenomenon in that it is not restricted to Canada, does not occur uniformly across the country, and has been variously claimed to be receding in favour of American standards, particularly in Vancouver. This paper presents the results of two studies addressing these issues. The first is an apparent‐time study of teens and adults in Vancouver. Results suggest that CR is generally a stable feature of Vancouver English, while both the raised and unraised variants show a strong apparent‐time fronting trend. These results demonstrate Vancouver to align with other Canadian cities with regards to CR. The second is a comparison between speakers in Washington State and Vancouver, British Columbia. Results indicate that the most widely‐remarked aspect of CR, the height of raised /aw/, continues to differentiate Washington from Vancouver speakers, but that in all other respects, speakers from the two regions demonstrate more similarities than differences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".