MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604429490 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n3p201

Perception and Production of Consonants of English by Pakistani Speakers

2017· article· en· W2604429490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nasir Abbas Syed, Sanaullah Ansari, Illahi Bux

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCodaLinguisticsSyllablePerceptionPsychologyVoiceAudiologySpeech productionProduction (economics)PhysicsAcousticsMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper depicts a comprehensive picture of consonants of Pakistani English (PakE). The study shows that PakE speakers neutralize aspiration contrast in English stops. In the PakE, /t/ in /st/ cluster on onset of a word (e.g., steal) is produced with more aspiration than that on syllable-initial position without preceding /s/ (e.g., in “teach”). Besides, /t d/ are produced with strong retroflexion but /t/ in tautosyllabic /st/ clusters on word-initial position is produced without retroflexion. Voiced stops are produced with pre-voicing. Dental fricatives /θ ð/ produced by native speakers of English are perceived as [f z] or [s v] by PakE speakers but they produce these fricatives as stop. PakE speakers can realize a difference between clear and dark lateral of English in perception although they do not maintain the same difference in production as they produce English lateral as a clear lateral on onset and coda of syllables. Coronal fricative /ʒ/ is perceived and produced as approximant /j/ and /v w/ as a labial approximant. In PakE [r] is produced with strong trilling and rhoticity on all word-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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207