MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335503780 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n2p1

The Influence of Elision on the Original Syllabic Structure in English and Safwani Arabic: A Contextual Analysis

2016· article· en· W2335503780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Majid Abdulatif Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabic verseLinguisticsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)PhraseArabicWord (group theory)Natural language processingSpeech recognitionHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elision, as being a distinguishing mark among phonological processes, plays a vital role in patterning and mapping syllables of the language in a way that it can “distort” particular syllabic forms and templates. It represents deterioration, modification and to some extent radical changes in the syllabic structure of the original words even though it is usually a result of rapid colloquial speech. This study is a phonological work to detect the influence of sound deletion on syllabic templates and patterns of English and Safwani Arabic. It is an attempt to work out an analysis of the possible contexts where individual segments and syllables exhibit deletion. The analysis of all possible contexts where segments and syllables are lost in these varieties is illustrated by detailed tables within the paper. The tables are designed in a way that both original and reduced word or phrase forms are given, the context of sound elision is provided and then both original and resulting syllabic patterns are demonstrated.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207