Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some speakers of Canadian French produce the vowels /o// and /œ/ with a rhotic perceptual quality, leading pneu, docteur, and brun to sound like /pnr/, /dOktarR/, and /bRr/. English /r/ can be produced with a variety of tongue shapes (including bunched and retroflex variants; Delattre and Freeman 1968, etc.), raising the question of whether French rhotic vowels are also produced with categorically different tongue shapes. Mid-sagittal ultrasound video was recorded for three native speakers of Canadian French producing words containing /œ/, /œR/, and /o// in a carrier phrase. Acoustic analysis of rhotic- and non-rhotic-sounding vowels reveals that the rhotic perceptual quality is associated with a low third formant, which is an important acoustic cue for English /r/. Two of the subjects produced rhotic vowels with a tip-down bunched tongue shape closely resembling Delattre and Freeman's type 4 and one subject produced them with a retroflex tongue shape. The study provides articulatory data on retroflex vowels, which are typologically rare, and on bunched-retroflex variation in a language other than English. The parallel cases of articulatory variability in French and English raise opportunities for investigating articulatory-acoustic mapping in bilinguals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".