MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2037256921 · doi:10.1121/1.2934307

Acoustic properties of the interdental approximant in Kagayanen

2008· article· en· W2037256921 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth S. Olson, Jeff Mielke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantInterdental consonantAcousticsMathematicsSignificant differenceDuration (music)VowelSpeech recognitionPhysicsComputer scienceMedicineOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the acoustic properties of the interdental approximant, a rare speech sound reported to date only in a dozen languages in the Philippines. The measurements analyzed here are based on recordings of one female speaker of Kagayanen. The interdental approximant exhibits acoustic characteristics typical of semi-vowels: the formant pattern is similar to that of vowels, and the formant transitions with adjoining vowels have a long duration, usually 35 ms or more. The values of F2 and F3 are analogous to those of the Kagayanen [l], a prototypical voiced alveolar lateral; the only significant formant value difference between the two sounds involves F1: the interdental approximant has a mean of 508 Hz (n=9), whereas the mean for [l] is 368 Hz (n=9). On the other hand, while these two segments sound impressionistically similar, the interdental approximant differs acoustically from [l] in several other respects as well: there is no abrupt change in the formant pattern at the junctures with adjoining vowels, the higher formants (F6 and above) are not reduced in intensity, and F3 is not enhanced in intensity compared to semi-vowels.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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