The relationship between fundamental frequency and vowel quality.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is disagreement over the role fundamental frequency (f0) plays in the determination of vowel quality. Some claim [e.g., D. Smith et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 305–318 (2005)] that changes in f0 do not affect vowel quality at all. Others claim there is relationship between f0 and vowel quality, whether direct or indirect [see T. M. Nearey and P. F. Assmann, in Experimental Approaches to Phonology, edited by M. J. Solé and P. S. Beddor (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007), pp. 246–269 for a review]. To test these theories, a series of experiments was carried out in which participants were asked to make simultaneous speaker and vowel quality judgments. Participants were presented with a synthetic vowel continuum spanning from [æ] to [ʌ] matched with several different f0s and higher formants. Participants were asked to rate vowel quality on a continuous scale ranging from completely [æ] to completely [ʌ] and to indicate the size and gender of the speaker. Results indicate that there is a complicated, indirect relationship between f0 and vowel quality, and that shifts in vowel quality caused by changes in f0 are a result of changes in assumed speaker properties.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".