MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608080289

Using Optical Flow Analysis on Ultrasound of the Tongue to Examine Phonological Relationships

2017· article· en· W2608080289 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelMovement (music)TongueOptical flowContrastive analysisContrast (vision)PhoneticsSpeech recognitionAcousticsLinguisticsComputer sciencePsychologyMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsImage (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines whether there are articulatory correlates of differing degrees of phonological contrast. English tense vowels are found to be produced with greater average magnitudes of movement when they occur in closed syllables, where they are generally contrastive with their lax vowel counterparts, than when they occur in open syllables, where they are less contrastive. Magnitude of tongue movement was determined by optical flow analysis of ultrasound videos of tongue movements; optical flow analysis allows for direct comparison of results across speakers and for the extraction of data from the entire timecourse of productions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.211 · 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