MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069680812 · doi:10.1121/1.3385268

Vowel-inherent spectral change in isolated vowels and consonant vowel consonants.

2010· article· en· W2069680812 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter F. Assmann, Terrance M. Nearey, Michael Kiefte

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantDiphthongVowelConsonantMid vowelStop consonantMathematicsContext (archaeology)AcousticsNova scotiaAudiologySpeech recognitionComputer scienceGeographyMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To study the interaction of vowel inherent spectral change (VISC) and consonant context on vowel formant patterns, we recorded 15 vowels /i ɪ eɪ ε æ ʌ ɑ ɔ oU U u ɝ ɑɪ ɑU ɔɪ/ in each of 14 consonant environments (pVp, pVb, bVb, bVp, tVt, tVd, dVt, dVd, kVk, kVg, gVk, gVg, hVd, and V) spoken by 10 men and 10 women from the north Texas region. Analysis of vowel formant frequency trajectories confirmed the reliable presence of VISC across talkers for a range of consonant environments. Vowels showing stable patterns of VISC included those acknowledged as diphthongs in most North American English dialects, /ɑɪ/, /ɑU/, /ɔɪ/, /eɪ/, /oU/, as well as /ɪ/, with more variable movement patterns for /ε/, /æ/, and /u/. Of particular interest were cases where the formants F1 and/or F2 showed a “switchback” pattern of movement, with initial movement in the expected direction for the vowel (as observed in isolated vowels) and subsequently toward the“locus” for the final consonant. Parallel analyses of VISC in three dialects (north Texas, Nova Scotia, and Alberta) are currently underway and will be reported at the meeting along with statistical modeling results [Nearey (this meeting)].

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207