MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1836595136 · doi:10.3765/amp.v1i1.50

In some Languages, /s/ is a Vowel

2014· article· en· W1836595136 on OpenAlexafffund
Heather Goad, Akiko Shimada

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSonority hierarchyObstruentSyllabificationVowelPhonotacticsLinguisticsSyllableContext (archaeology)CodaSpeech recognitionComputer scienceMathematicsHistoryPhonologyAcousticsPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>In clusters, /s/ fails to respect the phonotactic constraints of other obstruents; for example, /s/+stop, the optimal sC cluster, does not involve rising sonority. In research that adopts an articulated view of the syllable, the behaviour of /s/ has been captured through assigning it some special status, for example, as an appendix in sC clusters. No proposal along these lines contests the position that /s/ is an obstruent. However, what makes /s/ different from other obstruents is that, like a vowel, it has robust internal cues for place and manner, which ensures its perceptibility, even when adjacent to stops. This paper examines /s/ in Blackfoot (Algonquian), which goes well beyond the appendix-like behaviour this segment shows in other languages. We propose that this is because Blackfoot /s/ <em>is</em> a vowel: it can be underlyingly non-moraic (akin to a glide), monomoraic or bimoraic. Depending on its position in the string, moraic /s/ will surface as a syllable head and/or coda, sometimes with links to preceding or following onsets as well. None of this, we argue, has to be stipulated: combined with ordinary constraints on syllabification (place, sonority and hiatus), the segmental context in which /s/ occurs determines its realization.</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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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