What Matters in Artificial Learning, Sonority Hierarchy or Natural Classes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My research examines one proposed universal, the implicational nasal hierarchy scale, testing whether this scale is found with speakers of a language with no clear evidence for a nasal hierarchy.Walker (2011) proposes a universal implicational nasalized segment scale based on evidence from typological frequency, Vowels > Glides > Liquids > Fricatives > Stops. She argues that if a more marked blocker class blocks harmony (vowels are least marked targets, so least likely to be blockers, and most likely to be targets), so do the less marked blocker classes (stops are most marked targets, so most likely to be blockers, and least likely to be targets). I address whether a pattern that is predicted by this implicational universal is easier to learn than one that is not. In particular, I investigate if it is easier to make a generalization when a more marked blocker (vowel)/target (stop) is presented during training and a less marked blocker (stop)/target (vowel) in testing rather than vice versa. In sum, individual and grouped results show evidence that both natural classes and a hierarchy play an important role in phonological artificial grammar learning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".