Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been previously suggested that fricative production is marked by a longer glottal opening as compared to sonorous segments. The present study uses electroglottography (EGG) and acoustic measurements to test this hypothesis by examining the activity of the vocal cords during the articulation of fricative and sonorant segments of English and Sorbian. An English and a Sorbian speakers' extended individual productions of the phonemes /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, m, n, r, l, a/ and each phoneme in the context #Ca were recorded. The open quotient was calculated using MATLAB. H1-H2 measures were taken at 5% into the vowel following each C and at 50% into the vowel. The results indicate that the glottis is open longer during the production of fricatives than for sonorous segments. Furthermore, the glottis is slightly more open for the production of nasals and liquids than it is for vowels. These results suggest that a longer glottal opening facilitates the increased airflow required to produce frication. This contrasts previous analyses which suggested that frication is primarily achieved through a tightened constriction. While a tighter constriction may be necessary, the increased airflow velocity produced by a longer glottal opening is critical for the production of frication.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".