Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies show that native speakers have exhibited changes in both phonetic and phonemic characteristics in their L1 production and perception after living in an L2 community for years. Little is known if the phenomenon is also present in the tonal production of native speakers of tone languages who grew up in an English-speaking environment. This research examines both the phonetic and phonemic features of the six Cantonese tones (i.e., vowel duration, pitch contour, and tonal space) produced by two groups of adult Canadian Cantonese bilinguals: early (AOA: less than 1 year) and late (AOA: 10–13 years). The data collected were compared with those of a group of native Cantonese speakers (AOA: greater than 18 years). Analyses revealed that (i) both the early and the late bilinguals produced significantly longer vowel durations than did the comparison group, and that (ii) their pitch contours and tonal space were significantly different from those of the native speakers. In addition, the early bilinguals’ tonal productions were more deviant from the native productions than those of the late 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".