Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper Sorbian has been influenced tremendously by German, causing it to adopting the uvular rhotic. The current study examines the uvular rhotic and its palatalized counterpart in three vocalic environments (word initial, intervocalic, and word final) with the vowels /a, e, o, i/ using ultrasound. The preliminary results indicate a striking difference between the two phonemes. The plain uvular rhotic was characterized by a retracted and raised tongue dorsum, accompanied by a slightly retroflexed tongue tip. The retroflexed tongue tip is surprising for a uvular rhotic. It could be related to requirements for rhotic production or a remnant of the alveolar rhotic Upper Sorbian had historically. The environments with /i/ were especially striking: the uvular rhotic was palatalized intervocalically; the tongue body was raised near the palatal region, while the dorsum retracted strongly. In other word positions, the rhotic caused a lowering and retraction of /i/. The palatalized rhotic had a raised tongue body, but the tongue dorsum was as retracted as the plain rhotic and less susceptible to environmental influence. The tongue tip was laminal in articulation, rather than retroflexed. The more consistently retracted tongue dorsum may be related to a need to maintain rhotic qualities. [Work supported by SSHRC.]
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".