Canadian raising and the perception of consonant voicing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have shown that monophthongal VC sequences with higher F1 and shorter durations result in more [-voice] consonant responses than those with lower F1 and longer durations [Moreton, E. 2004 J. Phon. 32(1), 1, Nearey, T. M. 1997, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 101(6), 3241]. However, certain diphthongs in varieties of English with Canadian Raising show the opposite pattern, namely that before C[+voice], /aɪ/ diphthongs will have higher F1 in the nucleus than before C[-voice]. This study will investigate the interaction of interpretations of vowel tokens as monophthongs or diphthongs on the perception of the voicing of the following consonant. Measurements will be made from the speech of 10-20 speakers of Canadian English from the Edmonton area to be used in the resynthesis of hVd and hVt tokens. This will involve construction of a multi-dimensional continuum varying F1 values of the vowel nucleus as well as vowel duration and trajectory from nucleus to offglide. The resulting continuum will span both the four phonetic vowel categories [^, a, ^ɪ, aɪ] (where [^ɪ] and [aɪ] are viewed as allophones of a single phoneme /aɪ ), and also the final consonants /t/ and /d/.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".