Intervocalic consonants in the speech of English-speaking Canadian children with phonological disorders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquisition of intervocalic consonants has been insufficiently studied, both in terms of subject numbers, and in terms of differentiating syllabification patterns from those involving vowel feature assimilation. The question has remained: are English intervocalic consonants syllable-initial (onsets), syllable-final (codas) or ambisyllabic? This study addresses these issues in the speech of 44 English-speaking Canadian children with phonological disorders. Intervocalic consonants resembled word-initial onsets in that they were deleted less often than word-final consonants. When there was no deletion, intervocalic consonants were more likely to be segmentally unique (ambisyllabic?) than like onsets or codas. In segmental inventories, segments rarely appeared only in intervocalic position, and showed an equal affinity to onsets and codas, with two exceptions. Sonorant continuants and, to a lesser extent, fricatives showed patterns in intervocalic position that may have reflected assimilation. For children with less severe disorders, velars and fricatives occurred intervocalically only if they also occurred in codas, suggesting a coda-like (ambisyllabic?) status.
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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it