How phonological context affects comprehension: The case of assimilated nasals and stops.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four forced-choice identification tasks examined the recognition of words containing sounds that have undergone the process of nasal place assimilation (‘phone box’: /n/→[m]) or stop place assimilation (‘cat box’: /t/→[p]). Identification scores and response times were measured for words ending in unassimilated or assimilated coronal consonants, which were either presented in isolation or within a carrier sentence that provided the triggering phonological context for place assimilation (i.e., where the word-final coronal consonant is followed by a word-initial labial sound). Identification scores showed that the presence of the context had a positive influence on listeners’ correct identification of the assimilated forms. Furthermore, this effect was comparable across nasal and stop consonants. However, response time measures showed that phonological context speeded the recognition of assimilated nasals but not assimilated stops. This finding is consistent with the idea that compensation for assimilation involves distinct processing mechanisms for nasals versus stop consonants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".