Positional targets for lingual consonants defined using electromagnetic articulography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examined the positional targets for lingual consonants defined using a point-parameterized approach with Wave (NDI, Waterloo, ON, Canada). The overall goal was to determine which consonants had unique tongue positions with respect to other consonants. Nineteen talkers repeated vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV) syllables that included consonants /t, d, s, z, , k, g/ in symmetrical vowel contexts /i, u, a/, embedded in a carrier phrase. Target regions for each consonant, characterized in terms of x,y,z tongue positions at the point of maximum tongue elevation, were extracted. Distances and overlaps were computed between all consonant pairs and compared to the distances and overlaps of their contextual targets. Cognates and postalveolar homorganics were found to share the location of their target regions. On average, alveolar stops showed distinctively different target regions than alveolar fricatives, which in turn showed different target region locations than the postalveolar consonants. Across talker variability in target locations was partially explained by differences in habitual speaking rate and hard palate characteristics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".