Transcription-based and acoustic analyses of rhotic vowels produced by children with and without speech sound disorders: Further analyses from the Memphis Vowel Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acquisition of rhotic monophthongs (/ɝ/ and /ɚ/) and diphthongs (/ɪ͡ɚ, ɛ͡ɚ, ɔ͡ɚ and ɑ͡ɚ/) was examined in 3- and 4-year-old children with and without speech sound disorders (SSDs), using both transcription-based and acoustic analyses. African-American (AA) and European-American (EA) participants (n = 40) with and without SSD were selected from archival data collected as part of the Memphis Vowel Project. Dialect variation influenced rhotic vowels differently for EA and AA children, thus their data were reported separately. Transcription-based analyses showed wide variation in the accuracy of different rhotic vowels. The most frequent error pattern for children with SSD was Derhoticization to a Back Rounded Vowel (e.g. /ɝ/ → [ʊ]; /ɪ͡ɚ/ → [ɪ͡о]). Rhotic diphthong reduction errors were less frequent; however, Coalesence (/ɑ͡ɚ/ → [ɔ]) was often observed for /ɑ͡ɚ/. F2, F3 and F3-F2 spectral movement patterns revealed differences between productions transcribed as correct and incorrect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".