Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a study of pulmonic ingressive speech, a severely understudied phenomenon within varieties of English. While ingressive speech has been reported for several parts of the British Isles, New England, and eastern Canada, thus far Newfoundland appears to be the only locality where researchers have managed to provide substantial evidence from audio recordings. The present investigation is based on a digital speech corpus consisting of over 40 hours of interviews, recorded between 1980 and 1985 throughout the entire Shetland archipelago, including the most remote isles; speech samples from 49 men and 47 women are included in the corpus. Ingressive speech was found throughout the Shetland Isles, and occurred on discourse particles representing ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses, such as ‘yeah’, ‘aye’, ‘no’, and ‘mmm’. It was attested for 27 per cent of males and 32 per cent of females, although significantly more tokens were contributed by females. Both voiced and voiceless ingressives were encountered, which revealed further clues to potential gender marking: 72 per cent of all tokens from males were voiceless, and 65 per cent of tokens from females were voiced. While the paper provides firm evidence for ingressive speech in Shetland, it also discusses recent observations indicative of a decline in ingressive speech within the isles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".