Canadian raising in Fort Wayne, Indiana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenon often referred to as Canadian Raising, wherein speakers raise the diphthongs /aɪ/ and /aʊ/ to [ʌɪ] and [ʌʊ], respectively, when preceding voiceless sounds, is attested not only in Canada but also in places in the Northern periphery of the U.S. (e.g., Ann Arbor and the Upper Peninsula, in Michigan). Raising has also been documented in locations distant from the border, such as Philadelphia. The current study examines the spread of raising farther south from Michigan into northeast Indiana, specifically Fort Wayne. Acoustic analysis of preliminary data from Fort Wayne area speakers was conducted to determine whether raising indeed occurs and to explore the effect of contextual factors such as speaker sex, age, and prosodic structure. The results confirm that while this raising does in fact happen around Fort Wayne, there is an age effect: younger speakers (<25 yr) show raising across the board in the expected environments but older speakers (>60 yr) do not. This suggests that vowel raising is a relatively new characteristic of Fort Wayne English.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".