MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2023798615 · doi:10.1121/1.4787882

Discourse-level contours in Nehiyawewin

2005· article· en· W2023798615 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Muehlbauer, Clare Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntonation (linguistics)DeclinationLinguisticsRange (aeronautics)PsychologyMathematicsSpeech recognitionPhysicsComputer scienceAstrophysicsPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study describes declination and discourse-sized intonation contours in Nehiyawewin, an Algonquian language whose pitch and intonation systems have not been previously studied. The study draws on 270 min of recordings of two female Nehiyaw elders telling their life stories to another Nehiyawewin native speaker. Data is analyzed by using Praat’s default algorithm to generate f0 curves for each breath group. Preliminary results indicate: (1) When breath-group internal pitch peaks are considered, an obvious downward trend of f0 occurred in fewer than half the breath groups analyzed (about 40% or 37/90). This raises questions about the role of classical declination in natural discourse [Umeda, Journal of Phonetics 10 (1982)]. (2) When we abstract away from declination within a breath group by computing mean f0 and mean pitch peak for each breath group and tracking trends for these means, larger patterns seem to emerge; breath groups can be grouped into larger units based on raising and lowering trends. These units have a mean peak range of 150 Hz with a 30 Hz change from one breath group to the next and correspond to a domain of around five clauses (about 3–4 breath groups, about 45 syllables).

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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