Acoustic measurement of word-initial stop consonants in English-French interlingual homophones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to examine word-initial stop consonants of Canadian English (CE) and Canadian French (CF) interlingual homophones in order to describe how they differ in their acoustic properties. Interlingual homophones (IH) are words across languages that are phonemically identical but phonetically and semantically different, for example, English two /tu/ and French tout /tu/. Even though they are deemed phonemically identical, at the acoustical level they may be quite different. In the current study, Canadian bilingual English and French speakers were asked to produce interlingual homophones embedded in carrier phrases and in isolation. Voice onset time, relative burst intensity, and burst spectral properties of the IH words were measured and compared within and across languages. The acoustic measurements obtained will be used (1) to make predictions about which acoustic features may provide cues to language identity, and (2) to create stop tokens for a Goodness Rating study. Results from this study will provide insight on the acoustic-phonetic representation of stop consonants in Canadian bilingual English and French speakers.
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) | 0.002 | 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".