MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2086174481 · doi:10.1121/1.4787296

The effects of implosives and prenasalized stops on pitch in Shona

2005· article· en· W2086174481 on OpenAlexaff
Mario E. Chávez-Peón

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBantu languagesConsonantLinguisticsVowelShonaTone (literature)Duration (music)MathematicsPsychologyAcousticsPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that F0 at vowel onset can be influenced by a preceding consonant. That influence varies significantly across languages and consonant types, and may function as a perceptual signal to consonant manner. It has further been suggested that tone languages may behave differently from non-tone languages in this respect, with a shorter duration of consonantal perturbation [Hombert, Studies in African Linguistics, 1977]. Previous studies include a limited range of consonant types, and too few tone languages to test Hombert’s proposal. This study presents the results of an acoustical investigation of the effects of implosives and prenasalized stops on the F0 of a following vowel in Shona, a tone language. It is found that implosives have a similar raising effect on F0 at vowel onset than that of voiceless (aspirated) stops, contrary to expectations based on previous studies [Wright and Shryock, Journal of the Phonetic Association, 1993]. It is also found that prenasalized consonants behave as nasals, having no effect on the F0 of the following vowel, again contrary to expectation [cf. Trithart, Studies in Bantu Tonology, 1976; and Hombert, Studies in Bantu Tonology, 1976]. Finally, duration results do not support Hombert’s position regarding tone 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 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)0.005
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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