MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2055956653 · doi:10.1121/1.3508798

Modulation of phonetic duration by morphological and lexical predictors.

2010· article· en· W2055956653 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Sims, Benjamin V. Tucker, R. Harald Baayen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelAlternation (linguistics)Duration (music)LinguisticsMathematicsAmerican EnglishPast tenseVariation (astronomy)Speech recognitionComputer scienceAcousticsVerbPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates how the duration of the stem vowel of regular and irregular English verbs is modulated by tense (present and past), regularity, lexical frequency, gang size of the vocalic alternation, imageability ratings, and vowel quality. The vocalic durations of 48 monosyllabic irregular verbs and 171 regular verbs were extracted from the Buckeye Corpus of spontaneous speech. A linear mixed effects regression model revealed that vowels of past tense forms tend to have longer durations than vowels of present tense forms, that vowels of words that are less imageable are realized with shorter durations, and that tense vowels are longer than lax vowels. Surprisingly, higher frequency irregular past tense forms were produced with longer vowels, contradicting Aylett and Turk [(2004); (2006)] and Bell et al. [(2003); (2009)]. Further, vowels were shorter for irregular verbs with larger vocalic alternation gangs, contradicting the predictions of Kuperman et al. [(2007)] but supporting hypotheses that units with a smaller information load have shorter durations. This pattern of results is interpreted as a consequence of the pressure for regularization during the production of irregular past tense forms.

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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