Bibliographic record
Abstract
Labov [30, (1991)] described Western English as a dialect where neither the Northern Cities Shift nor the Southern Shift operate. The vowel/æ/ is resistant to raising and /a/ and /ɔ/ are merged as a single low-back phoneme. Labov et al. [37, (2006)] (ANAE) predicted differential fronting of /uw/ and /ow/, a lack of Canadian Raising or glide-deletion, and a merger or near-merger of /i/ and /ɪ/ before tautosyllabic /l/. Di Paolo and Faber [(1990)] argued that the vowel system of Utah fits the Southern pattern. This would predict a reversal of /i/ and /ɪ/ in phonetic space and the deletion or weakening of the glide in the diphthong /aɪ/. This study tests this prediction in the speech of natives of Salt Lake City, UT. Sociolinguistic interviews of seven young adults were analyzed acoustically. Results show that the Utah vowel system is more complicated than either ANAE or Di Paolo and Faber suggested. The data suggest differential fronting of /uw/ and /ow/, an approximation of /i/ and /ɪ/, and an approximation of /a/ and /ɔ/, consistent with Western patterns. However, data also suggest the glide of /aɪ/ is weakened before voiced segments and in open syllables, consistent with the Southern pattern.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".