MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2015042415 · doi:10.1121/1.429028

Acoustics and perception of Russian plain-palatalized contrast

2000· article· en· W2015042415 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexei Kochetov

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContrast (vision)CodaVowelSyllableSpeech recognitionPerceptionPosition (finance)Mismatch negativityAcousticsCoronal planePsychologyComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceMedicineAnatomyNeuroscienceElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic and perceptual correlates of Russian syllable-final plain and palatalized coronal stops were investigated. The acoustic analysis based on the data from six talkers showed that the stops were consistently released both word-finally and before stops. Both consonants in final position were strongly affricated and aspirated. The VC transitions to palatalized stops extended for more than half of the vowel, substantially affecting its quality. The perception experiment (12 listeners) determined that both bursts and transitions were perceptually relevant to the identification of the two phonemes. The contrast in final and preconsonantal environments differed in the relative importance of these cues: VC transition was more important for the plain-palatalized distinction in final position, while burst was a major cue to the contrast in preconsonantal position. The findings suggest that the presence of the plain-palatalized phonemic contrast in perceptually less favorable syllable coda positions is compensated for by additional acoustic information that assists a listener in the recoverability of the contrast. [Work supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→