MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562257696 · doi:10.1044/2015_jslhr-s-15-0033

Lip Movements for an Unfamiliar Vowel: Mandarin Front Rounded Vowel Produced by Japanese Speakers

2016· article· en· W2562257696 on OpenAlexaff
Haruka Saito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelMandarin ChineseFormantMid vowelRepetition (rhetorical device)PsychologyRoundingPronunciationAudiologyAcousticsLinguisticsSpeech recognitionComputer sciencePhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The study was aimed at investigating what kind of lip positions are selected by Japanese adult participants for an unfamiliar Mandarin rounded vowel /y/ and if their lip positions are related to and/or differentiated from those for their native vowels. Method: Videotaping and post hoc tracking measurements for lip positions, namely protrusion and vertical aperture, and acoustic analysis of vowel formants were conducted on participants' production in a repetition task. Results: First, 31.2% of all productions of /y/ were produced with either protruded or compressed rounding. Second, the lip positions for /y/ were differentiated from those for the perceived nearest native vowel; although they correlated with them in terms of vertical aperture, they did not in terms of protrusion/retraction. Conclusions: Lip positions for a novel rounded vowel seemed to be produced as a modification of existing lip positions from the native repertoire. Moreover, the degree of vertical aperture might be easily transferred, and the degree of protrusion is less likely to be retained in the new lip positions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207