Prosodic strengthening at the edges of prosodic domains in sighted and blind speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have shown that when producing isolated vowels, congenitally blind speakers produce smaller displacements of the lips (visible articulators), compared with their sighted peers. To investigate the role of visual experience on articulatory gestures used to produce salient speech contrasts, the production of vowels at the edges of low-level prosodic domains and high-level prosodic domains (in which gestures are reported to be strengthened) was studied in adult speakers of Quebec French. Ten sighted and ten congenitally blind participants were recorded during the production of the vowels /i/, /y/, /u/, /a/ in initial and final positions of two prosodic domains: word and intonational phrase. Synchronous acoustic and articulatory data were recorded using the Carstens AG500 Electromagnetic Articulograph system. Formant measures as well as displacements of the lips and tongue were analyzed. The results revealed that speakers produced larger ranges of lip and tongue movements at the edges of higher prosodic domains than at the edges of lower ones. Formant spaces and durational data are presented. The use of visible (lip and jaw) and invisible (tongue) articulators to implement the prosodic structure is discussed
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".