Comparing contrastively focused and clear speech productions of color terms.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Words that are prosodically marked as focused in English are phonetically similar to clear speech words. Just as clear speech words are longer and better articulated (hyperarticulated) compared with matched casual speech words, prosodically focused words are longer and hyperarticulated compared to matched, unemphasized words. These similarities suggest that the implementational difference between prosodic focus and clear speech is merely one of scope: the same parameters are adjusted to either highlight a single element in an utterance (focus marking) or all the elements in an utterance (clear speech). To explore this idea we investigated the acoustics and jaw kinematics of producing color terms in either a casual style, a clear speech style, or with contrastive focus. Preliminary acoustic results indicate that clear speech lengthening is greater than focus-marking lengthening in some speakers. These same speakers also vary f0 more when contrastively focusing color terms than when producing them clearly, though this effect interacts with phrase position. Focused and clearly produced color terms are similarly hyperarticulated relative to casually produced terms. The results suggest that most speakers have different parameter settings for prosodic highlighting than for clear speech.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".