MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2172458500 · doi:10.1121/1.4933627

Effects of following onsets on voice onset time in English

2015· article· en· W2172458500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeff Mielke, Kuniko Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoiceDuration (music)VowelVoice-onset timeSyllableCodaAudiologyPsychologyAcousticsStress (linguistics)Articulation (sociology)Place of articulationMathematicsLinguisticsSpeech recognitionConsonantComputer sciencePhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voice Onset Time (VOT) in English voiceless stops has been shown to be sensitive to place of articulation (Fischer-Jorgensen 1954), to contextual factors such as the height, tenseness, and duration of the following vowel and the voicing of coda consonants (Klatt 1975, Port & Rotunno 1979), to prosodic factors like stress and pitch (Lisker & Abramson 1967), and also to F0 (McCrea & Morris 2005) and speaking rate (Kessinger & Blumstein 1997, Allen 2003). We report two additional factors involving following consonants. We analyzed 120 /p/- and /k/-initial words produced by 148 Canadian English speakers (n = 17742). VOTs of the initial stops were measured semi-automatically and all other segment durations were measured using forced alignment. The results of a mixed-effects regression support earlier findings that VOT is longer in /k/, directly related to following vowel duration, inversely related to speech rate, longer before tense vowels, and shorter before voiceless codas. Additionally, we find that VOT is shorter when the next syllable starts with a phonetically voiceless plosive (i.e., excluding flapped /t/), and that the most relevant measure of vowel duration includes the duration of postvocalic liquids, even those that are typically analyzed as onsets.

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)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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