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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".