MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2038919015 · doi:10.1121/1.4920665

An acoustic study of pulmonic and ejective stops in the final coda position in Yucatec

2015· article· en· W2038919015 on OpenAlexaff
Masaki Noguchi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCodaVowelSyllableConsonantComputer scienceMathematicsSpeech recognitionAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, I present an acoustic analysis of contrast between pulmonic and ejective stops in the phrase final coda position in Yucatec, a Mayan language. Ejective consonants are found in about 16% of the world’s language, and there are a relatively large number of acoustic studies about these sounds. However, a significant empirical shortcoming of the previous studies is their exclusive focus on the acoustic realization of ejective consonants in the syllable onset position. This is partly due to a cross-linguistic tendency that ejective consonants are prohibited to occur in the syllable coda position. Therefore, data from Yucatec, which allows ejective consents to occur in the syllable coda position, fill the empirical gap. This study compared pulmonic stop /k/ and ejective stop /k’/ in the phrase final coda position taking a number of acoustic measurements. The results showed (1) stop release is shorter for the ejective, (2) stop closure duration is shorter for the ejective, (3) stop release noise intensity is higher for the ejective, and (4) the contrast between pulmonic and ejective stops affects the voice quality of the preceding short vowel (H1-H2 is lower for the short vowel preceding the ejective).

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)0.000
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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