Persistent labials, slippery coronals: the puzzle of Dibole consonant features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dibole consonant inventory is asymmetrical and full of gaps. In addition there are a number of dramatic alternations and phonotactic patterns that call for a unified account in terms of feature specification. The phenomena to be described and explained include: (i) a voiced bilabial stop ‘b’ which has disappeared (become ‘zero’) in many contexts, but reappears, ‘ghost-like’ in certain morphophonological environments; (ii) a voiced coronal ‘d’ which only exists as a very restricted allophone of /l/; (iii) a ‘p’ ~ ‘h’ alternation which parallels the ‘b’ ~ ‘zero’ alternation, and finally, (iv), an apparently default complex segment ‘dz’ which is inserted to provide an onset for otherwise vowel-initial roots in an environment where roots are prefixed with a syllabic nasal prefix, N- (class 9/10). The study proposes a unified account of these phenomena, eventually identifying ‘d’ as a sonorant stop rather than an ordinary obstruent.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".