Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vowel quadrilateral area, based on first and second formant measures of the corner vowels, has been shown to be correlated positively with intelligibility scores in studies of adults with and without dysarthria [Weismer et al., 2001] and children with and without dysarthria [Higgins and Hodge, 2002]. This study compared vowel areas of three groups of typical talkers (3 year-olds, 5-year-olds, and women) using a log Hz scale in two different speaking conditions. The first speaking condition was production of multiple tokens of isolated /hV/ syllables for each corner vowel, and the second was production of single word items containing the four corner vowels taken from a childrens’ test of intelligibility [Hodge, 1996]. An interaction of age with phonetic context was found. Vowel areas for the 3-year-olds did not differ between the two conditions and were the largest of the three groups. The 5-year-olds’ and women’s vowel areas were of similar size and both were smaller in the word condition. The women showed the greatest effect of phonetic context with a significantly smaller mean vowel area in the word than isolated vowel condition. [Work supported by Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital and Canadian Languaage and Literacy Research Network.]
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".