MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023720414 · doi:10.1159/000369629

A Comparative Analysis of Media Lengua and Quichua Vowel Production

2015· article· en· W2023720414 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhonetica · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsVowelMid vowelLinguisticsMathematicsStatistical analysisProduction (economics)Speech recognitionComputer scienceStatisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a comparative analysis of F1 and F2 vowel frequencies from Pijal Media Lengua (PML) and Imbabura Quichua. Mixed-effects models are used to test Spanish-derived high and low vowels against their Quichua-derived counterparts for statistical significance. Spanish-derived and Quichua-derived high vowels are also tested against Spanish-derived mid vowels. This analysis suggests that PML may be manipulating as many as eight vowels where Spanishderived high and low vowels coexist as near-mergers with their Quichua-derived counterparts, while high and mid vowels coexist with partial overlap. Quichua, traditionally viewed as a three-vowel system, shows similar results and may be manipulating as many as six vowels.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.275 · 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