MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769880887 · doi:10.1121/1.5014766

Incipient /ay/-Raising in Baton Rouge

2017· article· en· W2769880887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelly Berkson, Wendy Herd

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaising (metalworking)Baton rougeDiphthongAmerican EnglishContext (archaeology)LinguisticsHistoryHumanitiesMathematicsArtVowelPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian raising targeting the /ay/ diphthong has been reported for a number of dialects of U.S. English. In the United States and elsewhere, however, the incipient—or purely phonetic—stage of diphthong raising, wherein it is triggered only by consonants that are phonetically voiceless, has been notoriously difficult to capture. In such a stage, raising is expected before the /t/ in cite (/saɪt/ → [sʌɪt]) but not before the flapped-/t/ in citing (/saɪtɪŋ/ → [saɪɾɪŋ]). Berkson, Davis, and Strickler (in press) recently discovered incipient phonetic raising in northeastern Indiana, however, and have suggested that extremely short diphthongs immediately preceding a primary stress (as in citátion, psychólogy) may be the very first to undergo raising. We investigate this hypothesis with data from Louisiana. While Yat English spoken near New Orleans has been reported as an /aw/-raising dialect (Carmichael, 2012), we also find /ay/-raising in New Orleans. Furthermore, the question of whether raising is present in Baton Rouge remains unanswered. Data presented here reveal that incipient phonetic raising is present in some—but not all—talkers from Baton Rouge. We consider the variation in Baton Rouge /ay/-raising in the context of gender differences and of /ay/-monophthongization typical in Southern varieties of English.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207