Acoustic-phonetics of coronal stops: A cross-language study of Canadian English and Canadian French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was conducted to provide an acoustic description of coronal stops in Canadian English (CE) and Canadian French (CF). CE and CF stops differ in VOT and place of articulation. CE has a two-way voicing distinction (in syllable initial position) between simultaneous and aspirated release; coronal stops are articulated at alveolar place. CF, on the other hand, has a two-way voicing distinction between prevoiced and simultaneous release; coronal stops are articulated at dental place. Acoustic analyses of stop consonants produced by monolingual speakers of CE and of CF, for both VOT and alveolar/dental place of articulation, are reported. Results from the analysis of VOT replicate and confirm differences in phonetic implementation of VOT across the two languages. Analysis of coronal stops with respect to place differences indicates systematic differences across the two languages in relative burst intensity and measures of burst spectral shape, specifically mean frequency, standard deviation, and kurtosis. The majority of CE and CF talkers reliably and consistently produced tokens differing in the SD of burst frequency, a measure of the diffuseness of the burst. Results from the study are interpreted in the context of acoustic and articulatory data on coronal stops from several other languages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".