Degree of articulatory constraint predicts locus equation slope for /p,t,s,∫/
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree of articulatory constraints (DAC) model (Recasens, Pallarès, & Fontdevila, 1997) proposes that consonants involving the movement of the tongue dorsum are more resistant to coarticulation than those with a more fronted articulation. We assessed this claim using locus equation (LE) slopes as indicators of coarticulation. Participants were asked to produce V1(t).CV2 sequences as part of two-word phrases in a scripted dialog, where C is one of /p, t, s, ʃ/. LE were derived by measuring F2 at V2 onset and midpoint. Since LE slopes approaching 1 indicate high levels of coarticulation, it was hypothesized that segments with the lowest DAC would have the steepest slopes (/p/>/t/>/s/>/ʃ/) and this is what we found, lending support to the DAC model. A secondary hypothesis assessed the effect of emphatically stressing C on the LE. Participants partook in a dialog involving a “mishearing” of either the target C (Prominent condition) or the preceding V1(t) (Control condition), and they repeated the two word sequence. We expected participants to emphasize the misheard segment and reduce coarticulation if the C was misheard (lower LE slope). Our findings indicate that only the LE slopes of sibilants /s/ and /ʃ/ were reduced under prominence, perhaps due to their high DAC values.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".