An acoustic analysis of pulmonic ingressive speech in the Shetland Islands.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of a pulmonic ingressive airstream mechanism in the pronunciation of certain discourse particles, typically variants of “yes” and “no,” is a well-known and salient feature of Scandinavian languages. It has been suggested, however, that this may be a more general North Atlantic phenomenon—occurring as far west as Newfoundland and New England—which spread via migration and trade routes. Unfortunately, there seem to be very few audio recordings available from areas other than Scandinavia and Newfoundland (perhaps partly attributable to various elicitation difficulties) and very little acoustic analysis has been presented [E. Thom, MA thesis, UCL (2005); R. Eklund, J. Int. Phonetic Assoc. 38, 235–325 (2008)]. This paper contains a study of ingressive discourse particles in the Shetland Islands, which have strong historical links to Scandinavia. A significant number of ingressives were found in field recordings from 1980–1982. This paper presents an acoustic pilot study of ingressive discourse particles, focusing on issues such as formant structure and voicing/phonation characteristics. A comparison is also made with previous analyses [E. Thom, MA thesis, UCL (2005); R. Eklund, J. Int. Phonetic Assoc. 38, 235–325 (2008)] as well as audio samples from other localities within the North Atlantic region.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".