MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024312607 · doi:10.1353/lan.0.0011

Introducing phonetic science. By Michael Ashby and John Maidment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. viii, 222. ISBN 0521004969. $27.99.

2008· article· en· W2024312607 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoneticsArticulation (sociology)LinguisticsVowelCoarticulationPsychologyPhonologyTable of contentsComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Introducing phonetic science John H. Esling Introducing phonetic science. By Michael Ashby and John Maidment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. viii, 222. ISBN 0521004969. $27.99. This general introductory phonetics text draws on years of basic phonetics teaching practice at University College London. It covers the auditory, articulatory, and acoustic aspects of phonetics in a balanced way and is suitable for students in linguistics or clinical programs. It has eleven chapters, moving from sounds as spoken by real people, voice, place of articulation (POA), manner of articulation, and vowels to an instrumental view of voice analysis, airstream mechanisms, coarticulation, phonological processes, suprasegmentals, and perception. The pattern of study for students using this text is clearly established in the first chapters. The text begins from the perspective of phonetic notation, with a reproduction of the chart of the International Phonetic Association (IPA) (3), which I have to confess pleases me a great deal. When I was Secretary of the IPA (1995–2003), we received many requests to print the IPA chart in phonetics or linguistic texts, but most would append them somewhere at the end of the book. This text makes the chart (like the periodic table for chemistry) the starting point of how to deal with the description of speech—consistent with the authors’ approach to phonetics as an example of how speech is reduced to writing (a topic also dealt with in Ch. 1 rather than being stuck at the end of the book). It has to be noted that the IPA chart is the 1996 version; the chart was updated in late 2005 to incorporate the addition of one new symbol, but the authors did not know this in advance, and the new chart could easily be linked from their website. Other things that are introduced in Ch. 1 and that please me to no end include: an example of Alexander Melville Bell’s visible speech, a note on transcribing pathological speech, an example of the context in which fieldwork is done, the use of glottal stop as one of the first examples of things to transcribe, a handy list of the consonant and vowel symbols for English (Standard British in this case), a note on the status of prosody, and an introduction to acoustics. Just to explain my perspective in viewing this text, I would place it in the category of a second-year text—to be used in an introductory phonetics course after students have already taken one term of general introductory linguistics. The last chapter of the text leads directly into a course such as auditory and perceptual phonetics and to further courses in acoustics. Here is why I think that what is introduced in Ch. 1 is exactly what should be treated early on: When I teach second-year introductory phonetics, I always have an early lesson on how Alexander Melville Bell (the elder) represented speech iconically. Perhaps I do this because Alexander Graham Bell (1906)became a Canadian phonetician (who did his own fieldwork on Mohawk, by the way, and is honored today by a museum in Nova Scotia that is the only one I know dedicated to a phonetician); but it is also to show how iconic systems are inadequate to represent what contemporary alphabetical systems do. This text is discovery-oriented, whether drawing data from fieldwork or exploring how to render those sounds in writing. Students often ask me about transcribing speech in clinical circumstances, and I find it is useful to deal with the question early, as Ashby and Maidment have done on the website that accompanies their book (4). Introducing early on (4) the concept of working with a consultant in the field (a speaker of Divehi in the Maldives) is the way I feel that phonetics should be approached. The field is the original source of our data, and explaining the context in which phonetic symbolization is applied I find more worthwhile than just saying, ‘Here’s the symbol, and this is the sound it makes’. Then, starting transcription practice with a couple of vowels and glottal stops is more appealing to me than starting with a list of words in English and their transcription...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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