MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1966208652 · doi:10.1121/1.4809447

Consonantal perturbations of pitch in Halkomelem Salish

2005· article· en· W1966208652 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Brown, James J. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoiceVowelTone (literature)Duration (music)LinguisticsAcousticsAudiologyMathematicsSpeech recognitionComputer sciencePhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has long been noted that consonants have an effect on the pitch of a following vowel: voiceless stops tend to raise F0, while voiced stops lower it. It has also been suggested that the duration of such perturbations is shorter in tone languages than in non-tone languages [Hombert, Studies in African Linguistics (1977)]. This study compares the effects that consonants have on F0 in two closely related Salish languages: Island Halkomelem, a non-tone language, and Upriver Halkomelem, a language that has reportedly undergone some limited tonogenesis but offers no clear prosodic clues regarding tonality. The effects of the voiceless and ejective stop series were observed, and measurements of F0 were taken at the onset of voicing for the vowel, then at 20 msec. intervals up to 100 msec. Preliminary results indicate that i) Island Halkomelem shows a greater magnitude of difference in F0 at vowel onset between the voiceless and ejective stops than Upriver Halkomelem, and ii) Island Halkomelem shows greater durations of consonantal perturbations of F0 than does Upriver Halkomelem. This suggests that Upriver Halkomelem may have become more sensitive to pitch than the Island dialect, supporting the interpretation of this language as tonal. [Work supported by Phillips Fund.]

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)0.000
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→