Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on unconscious phonetic imitation have examined whether participant and/or model talker gender plays a role in degree and direction of the behavior. Findings, however, have alternately demonstrated greater imitation by men, greater imitation by women, more imitation toward a male model talker, and more imitation toward opposite sex model talkers. Other studies have reported no sex-based differences in imitation. Three experiments using a blocked-shadowing paradigm assessed the role of sex on degree and direction of imitation. In the first two experiments, base rates of imitation to a single model talker of a particular sex were compared across three acoustic features: vowel quality, word durations, and voice onset time (VOT). In the third experiment participants were exposed to both male and female models. One model talker exhibited modified VOT, enabling examination of sex-based differences in imitation. Preliminary results suggest that an imitator is more likely to mimic a model talker of the opposite gender and that acoustic features are imitated to different degrees. It is suggested that different acoustic features are associated with different social categories. These differences may explain the diverse and conflicting findings on sex-based effects that have been reported in the imitation literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".