MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2079841961 · doi:10.1121/1.3587919

Category interaction and stimulus effects in the perception of synthetic liquid+stop clusters.

2011· article· en· W2079841961 on OpenAlexaff
Terrance M. Nearey, Benjamin V. Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptStimulus (psychology)PerceptionMathematicsContrast (vision)AudiologySpeech perceptionPsychologyAcousticsCognitive psychologyPhysicsMedicineNeuroscienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are numerous studies of the perception of English stops in the syllables /arga, alga, arda, alda/ [e.g., A. Lotto and K. Kluender, Percept. Psychophys. 60, 602–619 (1998)]. Listeners give more /-da/ responses after /ar-/ syllables. There is controversy over the degree to which this effect involves general auditory contrast rather than phonetic context. The present study uses a two-dimensional continuum of 49 stimuli composed by crossing a seven-step /al-/ to /ar-/ series with a seven-step /-da/ to /-ga/ series. The variation in stimulus properties is localized to F3 only for both VC and CV stimuli. Listeners (n = 34) responded with all four categories. Results show clear phoneme level context effects. Ambiguous VC stimuli near the /al/-/arr/ boundary show significantly more /da/ responses in cases where the VC is heard as /ar/. This pattern is consistent with what has been called a diphone bias effect [T. Nearey, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 3241–3256 (1997)]. Surprisingly, for these stimuli, evidence for more continuous tuning of the /da/-/ga/ boundary by preceding l/r is quite weak. Thus, in this experiment, phonetic effects appear to dominate auditory contrast effects.

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)0.007
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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