Intrinsic vowel pitch in tracheo-esophageal speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tendency for high vowels to have higher fundamental frequency (f0) than low vowels, or intrinsic vowel pitch (IF0), has been found in both laryngeal and esophageal speech [e.g., Gandour and Weinberg, Phonetica 25, 140–164 (1980)]. In the present study, eight tracheo-esophageal speakers were asked to produce five repetitions of each of the four point vowels and f0 was measured. Results showed significantly higher f0 for high vowels than for low vowels, consistent with previous findings for laryngeal and esophageal speakers. In addition, f0 was measured from two laryngectomees over a period of 4 months immediately following surgery to determine whether IF0 is produced automatically or whether it develops over time. Neither of these subjects produced differences in IF0 at any time within the 4-month period. These preliminary data appear to indicate that IF0 is not an automatic consequence of either speech physiology or acoustics. More data from additional subjects will be presented. [Work supported by SSHRC.]
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".