Dat is What the PM Said: A Quantitative Analysis of Prime Minister Chrétien's Pronunciation of English Voiced Dental Fricatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sociolinguistic–variationist type analysis was applied to the pronunciation of the English voiced dental fricative // by one Francophone Canadian, Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Fricative []–realisations were favoured in an interview setting, and plosive [d]–realisations were favoured in formal speeches, attributable to difficulties associated with the task of reading aloud. []–realisations were favoured following fricatives, and [d]–realisations were favoured following voiceless but not voiced plosives; the latter result is proposed to be due to differences in intra–oral pressure. [d]–realisations were favoured preceding mid–high vowels, but []–realisations were favoured preceding /i/, explainable in terms of an articulatory effect that also produces affrication in Canadian–French /d/ preceding high–front vowels. Statistical analyses were conducted using GoldVarb and SPSS software. The latter allows for tests of the significance of individual factors and of factor group interactions. La prononciation de la fricative dentale voisee anglaise // chez un locuteur canadien francophone, le Premier ministre Jean Chretien, a ete soumise a une analyse variationniste sociolinguistique. Les realisations fricatives [] ont ete favorisees en contexte d'entrevue et les realisations plosives [d] dans les discours formels, ce qui peut etre attribue aux difficultes associees a la lecture a voix haute. Les realisations [] ont ete favorisees apres des fricatives et les realisations [d] ont ete favorisees apres des occlusives sourdes, mais non voisees; nous proposons que ce dernier resultat est relie a la pression intra–buccale. Les realisations [d] ont ete favorisees devant les voyelles mi-hautes, alors que les realisations [] ont ete favorisees devant /i/, ce qui peut etre explique par un effet articulatoire qui produit egalement l’affrication en francais canadien de /d/ devant les voyelles anterieures hautes. Des analyses statistiques ont ete realisees avec les logiciels GoldVarb et SPSS, ce dernier permettant de tester la significativite des facteurs individuels et des interactions entre groupes de facteurs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".