MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2046191600 · doi:10.1121/1.4777978

Release bursts in English word-final stops: A longitudinal study of Korean adults’ and children’s production

2002· article· en· W2046191600 on OpenAlexaff
Kimiko Tsukada, Molly Mack, Hyekyung Sung, David Birdsong, Ellen Bialystok

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidencePsychologyDemographyWord (group theory)Production (economics)AudiologyMedicineLinguisticsSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stops at the end of Korean words are always unreleased. The question addressed here was whether Korean adults and children living in the U.S. can learn to release stops at the end of English words. Four groups of 18 native Koreans (NK) who differed according to age (adult versus child) and length of residence in the U.S. (3 vs 5 years at T1) participated. Two native English (NE) groups served as age-matched controls. Production data were collected at two times (T1, T2) separated by one year. English words ending in /t/ and /k/ were then examined in perception experiments (Exp. 1, Exp. 2). NE-speaking judges decided whether the final stop has a release burst or not. Exp. 1 showed that NE talkers released /t/ more often than NK talkers did. The effect of time was also significant. Talkers produced release bursts more often at T2 than at T1. Exp. 2 showed that, unlike Exp. 1, there were significant differences between NK adults and children. While NK children did not differ from NE children, NK adults released the final /k/ much less often than NE adults did. Possible reasons for why the expected children’s advantage was seen for /k/, but not for /t/, will be discussed. [Work supported by NIH.]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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