Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have argued that the most reliable phonetic correlate of sonority is intensity (e.g., Parker 2002, 2008, Jany et al. 2007). However, those studies have only considered intensity of a single segment. This paper investigates the phonetic correlate of sonority contour in consonant clusters. 10 native speakers of American English (5 male, 5 female) read 33 monosyllabic English words that begin with a bi- or tri-consonantal cluster (e.g., play, stray) embedded in a frame sentence (“Father saw ‘____’ again,” used in Parker 2008). Measured first were (i) an average RMS and (ii) sound level minima of each consonant in the cluster C1C2, and the sonority contour was quantified by subtracting the intensity value of C1 from the intensity value of C2. Also, (iii) actual intensity slopes in the transition between the two consonants were measured. Results show that the intensity contours calculated based on (i) and (ii) do not always correspond to the intensity slopes (iii), while both of them are in general correlated with the sonority contour. It will also be suggested that it is intensity slopes (iii) that play a crucial role in consonant cluster perception and in phonological phenomena involving consonant clusters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".