MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1901483375

AN ultrasound study of coronal stop deletion in persian

2011· article· en· W1901483375 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Reza Falahati, Jeff Mielke

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersianUltrasoundSpeech recognitionCoronal planeConsonantTongueComputer scienceAcousticsLinguisticsMedicineRadiologyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the production of word-final consonant clusters in Persian in order to provide an account of their optional acoustic simplification.Persian optionally allows the simplification of word-final coronal stops when preceded by obstruents or the homorganic nasal /n/.The words /ræft/ 'went', /d u y / 'sew' and /qæsd/ 'intention', for example, are optionally simplified to [ræf], [dux], and [qæs] in fast or casual speech.What is unclear is whether there is any coronal gesture left after simplification occurs.This type of issue was first discussed in the Articulatory Phonology literature.For example, Browman and Goldstein (1990) hypothesized that the alveolar closure gesture for the apparently deleted /t/ in must be [mAsbi] in fluent/casual speech is still present but completely overlapped or hidden by the labial closure gesture.This means that the gesture for the alveolar /t/ (raising the tongue tip towards the alveolar ridge) is masked during the time that lips are closed or narrowed for labial /b/ and that is why the closure for /t/ is not audible.The current study aims to investigate this issue in Persian.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207