Acoustic measurement of Canadian English and Canadian French interlingual homophones.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how interlingual homophones of Canadian English (CE) and Canadian French (CF) differ along acoustic dimensions as a prelude to perceptual tests. Two male Canadian monolingual speakers of English and French produced sentences in which interlingual homophones were embedded (e.g., two /thu/ and /tu/ meaning all). Voiced onset times (VOTs), formant frequencies (F1 and F2), and vowel-inherent spectral changes (VISCs) of each respective speaker were examined. First, it is expected that the CE monolingual speaker will have aspirated (long-lag) voiceless stops, while the CF monolingual speaker will have unaspirated (short-lag) voiceless stops regardless of the context. Second, it is expected that CF vowels will have lower F1 values for lax vowels and will be produced more peripherally (with respect to F2 values) than CE vowels (i.e., French front vowels will be more advanced, and French back vowels will be more posterior). Lastly, it is expected that CF vowels will have less vowel-inherent spectral change than CE vowels. Results from this study will provide insight on the phonetic representation of interlingual homophones, enabling the understanding of acoustic-phonetic influences on the processes of speech perception in bilinguals (CE and CF).
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".