Acoustical analysis of Canadian and Parisian French word-final vowel productions in varying phonetic contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dialects can differ greatly in their phonetics and phonology, and can diverge to a great degree in vowel production. This study explores the acoustic nature of Canadian French (CF) vowels in word-final position, relative to those of Standard Parisian French (PF). CF and PF male participants were recorded producing minimal sets of words, differing in the final vowels /i y e "epsilon" a "o-bar" o u/, embedded in carrier phrases. Real-word minimal sets were constructed using words with final vowels preceded by labial, coronal, and back stops and fricatives. (Monosyllabic CV words were used whenever possible; VCV and CCV words were used when no CV word was available.) Nonsense disyllabic minimal sets were also recorded with vowels preceded by labial, coronal, and back stops in the following context: /gisCV/. Of particular interest was the stability of the /e - "epsilon"/ distinction in word-final position for Parisian French, which was maintained in preliminary results. Across-syllable boundary coarticulatory effects are also discussed. This is the first part of a larger study investigating second-language lexical and morphosyntactic CF vowel perception by English learners of French. [Work supported by NIH F31DC008075]
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 | 0.001 | 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".