Devoicing in post-vocalic Canadian-French obstruants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canadian French, besides periodic phonation, other cues can be associated with the voiced-voiceless distinction due to the application of phonological rules. These cues, mainly duration and vowel quality, may be present in the consonant itself (voiced consonants are shorter than their voiceless counterparts) and in the preceding vowels (duration and vowel quality). The cues are related to the application of an allophonic rule and the presence in the phoneme inventory of intrinsically long and short vowels. The tendency towards devoicing of some portion of a normally voiced consonant in post-vocalic word-final positions is found in many languages. The study investigates the patterns of devoicing in post-vocalic obstruants in Canadian French and attempts to verify the following functional hypothesis: a consonant will be more resistant to devoicing (absence of periodic structure) if no (or few) other cues of the voiced-voiceless distinction can be found either in the consonant itself or in the preceding vowel. The data will serve as a reference for current studies on patients with apraxia of speech.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".