Bibliographic record
Abstract
What types of consonants are transparent in vowel harmony in Gitksan has been little understood. Previous studies suggest that it is translaryngeal harmony, where the qualities of unstressed suffixal vowels are harmonized with the ones of last stem vowels, apparently skipping the stem-final laryngeal stop and laryngeal fricative [Rigsby, unpublished manuscript, University of Queensland, Australia, 1986; Rigsby and Ingram, International Journal of American Linguistics 56, 251–263 (1990)]. However, our original data show that harmony takes place when the stem-final consonant is uvular as well. It suggests that it cannot simply be analyzed as laryngeal transparency, but it could be reanalyzed as [+low] transparency. The present study examines cross-consonantal vowel harmony through acoustic experiment. It is predicted that there is a significant difference in formant values between the vowels across uvular or laryngeal consonants versus the ones across the other consonants. New data from an Eastern Gitksan speaker (female, 72) and its analysis will be presented. Implications for locality of vowel harmony as well as for the phonological treatment of consonantal transparency will be discussed. [Work supported by SSHRC.]
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".