MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2084558409 · doi:10.1121/1.4787942

Categorization of a <i>s</i> <i>i</i> <i>b</i> <i>i</i> <i>l</i> <i>a</i> <i>n</i> <i>t</i>+<i>v</i> <i>o</i> <i>w</i> <i>e</i> <i>l</i> continuum in Japanese, Mandarin, and English

2006· article· en· W2084558409 on OpenAlexaff
Terrance M. Nearey, Aya Okamoto, Chunling Zhang, Ron I. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantVowelMandarin ChinesePhonotacticsCategorizationAmerican EnglishSpeech recognitionComputer scienceAcousticsMathematicsAudiologyLinguisticsArtificial intelligencePhonologyPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A continuum of 168 synthetic sibilant+vowel stimuli was categorized by listeners of three languages (Japanese, Mandarin, and English). The contoid portion of each stimulus consisted of a 190-ms high-pass filtered white noise whose cutoff frequency varied from 1800 to 3800 Hz in 7 steps. (Signals were low-pass filtered at 8500 Hz before resampling to 22.05 kHz for playback.) Each (cascade formant) vocoid portion was 210 ms in duration varying in three F1 levels (from 300 to 430 Hz) crossed with four F2 levels (from 850 to 2100 Hz, with fixed F3 through F5). Each of the 84 noise+vocoid patterns was combined with two different F2 transition patterns, designed to slightly favor more alveolar or more palatal fricative responses. Appropriate response sets were determined in pilot studies for each language by native speakers on the research team. Corresponding software was designed to allow computer-controlled categorization. Data collection for 9 Japanese, 20 Mandarin, and 4 English listeners is complete (more is planned). Responses to the stimuli spanned at two or three sibilant and several (high-to-mid) vowel categories in each language. Possible effects of language-specific phonotactics on the response patterns will be discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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