Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ottawa is a Central Algonquian language that possesses the recent innovation of contrastive vowel nasalization. Most phonetic studies done to date on contrastive vowel nasalization have investigated Indo-European languages; therefore, a study of Ottawa could prove to be a valuable addition to the literature. To this end, a percentage of nasalization (nasal airflow/oral + nasal airflow) was measured during target vowels produced by native Ottawa speakers using a Nasometer 6200-3. Nasalized vowels in the target word set were either contrastively or contextually nasalized: candidates for contextual nasalization were either regressive or perserverative in word-initial and word-final syllables. Subjects were asked to read words containing target vowels in a carrier sentence. Mean, minimum, and maximum nasalance were obtained for each target vowel across its full duration. Target vowels were compared across context (regressive or perseverative and word-initial or word-final). In addition, contexts were compared to determine whether a significant difference existed between contrastive and contextual nasalization. Results for Ottawa will be compared with results for vowels in similar contexts in other languages including Hindi, Breton, Bengali, and French.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".