Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrinsic F0 (IF0) is the tendency for high vowels to have a higher F0 than low vowels. While IF0 has been found for every language studied [D. H. Whalen and A. Levitt, J. Phonetics 23, 349–366 (1995)], none of those languages distinctively contrasted advanced tongue root (ATR). Most languages conflate high tongue position with advanced tongue root, but some distinguish vowels by ATR. Here we report on two such languages, Igbo (a Niger-Congo language of Nigeria) and Kinande (a Bantu language of Congo). Acoustic analysis of F0 in Igbo suggests that +ATR vowels have higher F0s than their ATR counterparts. For Kinande, a combined acoustic and ultrasound study was performed. All five vowels /ieaou/ occur in ±ATR versions. All +ATR vowels except /i/ had higher F0s than their ATR counterparts. Horizontal depth at tongue root (distance from the jaw to the anterior pharyngeal wall) varied with ATR, as expected, and correlated with F0. Height also affected F0, in an amount of the same magnitude as for ATR. Some of IF0 appears to be attributable to pharyngeal shape (inferred from tongue depth), not to tongue height. Further work will examine which plays the more important role. [Work supported by NIH Grant DC-02717.]
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".