Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports on a preliminary production experiment in order to argue that word-word compounds with a left or right prosodic adjunct in Brazilian Portuguese (e.g., porta-guarda-chuva ‘umbrella holder’, lit. holder keep rain, and mico-leão-dourado ‘golden-lion-tamarin’, lit. tamarin lion golden, in which the adjunct is in bold) are prosodized recursively. It assumes that word-word compounds in BP correspond to composite groups, the prosodic domain between the phonological word and the phonological phrase proposed by Vogel ( 2008 , 2009 ), based on the observation that word-word compounds display phonological behaviour that is distinct from the behaviour of both regular words (i.e., non-compounds) and other composite structures in the language. The preliminary experiment involved the production of sentences containing complex compounds with left adjunction, complex compounds with right adjunction, coordinate compounds and coordinate phrases by native speakers of BP (n = 3). The results indicate that compounds with adjunction have specific acoustic profiles, which differ from the acoustic profile of both coordinate compounds and phrases. The analysis supports both prosodic recursion and the introduction of an additional prosodic domain, two views on prosodic configuration that are traditionally considered to be mutually exclusive.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".