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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blackfoot, an Algonquian language spoken in Alberta and Montana, has been described as a pitch accent language (Frantz and Russell 1989; Frantz 1991; Kaneko 1999). Pitch accent languages mark phonetic prominence with a difference in pitch on the prominent syllable. Beckman (1986) has shown that Japanese (a prototypical pitch accent language) differs from English (a prototypical stress language) in that fundamental frequency (pitch) is the only variable that marks prominence in Japanese, whereas several variables mark prominence in English. These variables include fundamental frequency (F0) peak, amplitude peak, average amplitude, total amplitude and duration. Based on Beckman's analysis of Japanese, we would expect Blackfoot, as a pitch accent language, to mark prominence only with F0, thus patterning with Japanese. However, this analysis shows that in addition to F0, average amplitude was also correlated with prominence in Blackfoot, amplitude peak, total amplitude and duration were not. These results suggest that Blackfoot is different than Japanese in how prominence is marked. However, the results are similar enough to justify the classification of Japanese as a pitch accent language.
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 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) | 0.002 | 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 it