MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407652563 · doi:10.1017/s0008413100018247

A Language Without a Rhyme: Syllable Structure Experiments in Korean

2001· article· en· W2407652563 on OpenAlexaff
Yeo Bom Yoon, Bruce L. Derwing

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhymeLinguisticsOrthographySyllableOptimal distinctiveness theoryPsychologyTask (project management)JudgementRecallContrast (vision)PhonologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyReading (process)Poetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Prior research has suggested that Korean might constitute an exception to the proposed notion of the universality of the rhyme. Five experiments were performed to test this hypothesis out with native speakers of that language. Four different experimental tasks were employed: a global sound similarity judgement task, a concept formation task, a unit reduplication task, and a list recall task. In all cases the results indicate that Korean syllables were seen to contain a cohesive CV orbodyunit, in contrast to the VC ofrhymeunit of English. The final experiment, involving list recall, was considered especially important, as it involved the testing of preliterate children, whose results could not have been influenced by knowledge of the orthography. An attempt is made to explain these findings in terms of intrinsic properties of the syllables in the two languages. The theoretical significance of this research is also 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations46
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistiqueSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207