EMA, endoscopic, ultrasound and acoustic study of two secondary articulations in Moroccan Arabic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on three physiological experiments (electromagnetic articulography, endoscopy and ultrasound) carried out separately with two speakers, but with one subject in common, we demonstrate that the back articulation of the Moroccan Arabic emphatic stop consonants can be considered as pharyngealised, i.e. produced with a constriction in the oro-pharyngeal cavity. The emphatics /ṭ ḍ/ 1 are not velarised, and /ḍ/ has a slight degree of labialisation. MA geminate labials, generally considered as ‘labialised’, are clearly velarised in accord with phonological analyses by Heath (1987) and Elmedlaoui (1995), and not emphatic or pharyngealised as was predicted by Mitchell (1993). These labials are labial-velarised consonants since they are also slightly more labialised compared to their singleton cognates. We confirm that the labialisation observed in word initial clusters /#C 1 C 2 /, where /C 1 / or /C 2 / is a velar or uvular consonant, is associated with /C1/ even when this latter is coronal. Labialised dorsals (velars and uvulars: /k w , ɡ w , q w , χ w , ʁ w /) are not only labialised, but also more retracted than their non-labialised counterparts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".