MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2027603284 · doi:10.1121/1.4808910

Initial pitch informs sentence duration

2006· article· en· W2027603284 on OpenAlexaff
Johanna Tan, Joel Robert William Dunham, Caleb Lee, Eric Vatikiotis‐Bateson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentenceDuration (music)PerceptionLinguisticsContrast (vision)Relation (database)Variation (astronomy)PsychologySpeech recognitionComputer scienceMathematicsAcousticsArtificial intelligencePhysicsPhilosophyAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study re-examines the potential relation between sentence duration and sentence-initial fundamental frequency (F0), in both speech production and perception, and provides perceptual evidence for speech planning. Liberman and Pierrehumbert [in Language Sound Structure, edited by Aronoff & Oerhle (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1984)] argued that a correspondence between sentence length and initial F0 would accommodate declination and could be evidence for speech planning. Unfortunately, their study did not provide strong evidence either for or against this intriguing possibility. The present study has two parts: First, read sentences were recorded for native English speakers and the relation between sentence length and F0 was analyzed. With a few exceptions, longer sentences had higher initial F0. Second, 24 listeners were presented with initial portions (300 and 700 ms) of the recorded sentences and asked to make both relative and absolute predictions of total sentence duration. Subjects consistently associated sentence fragments containing higher initial F0 with longer sentences. [Research supported by NSERC and CFI.]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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