MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PROSODIC INTERFERENCE IN THE SPEECH OF ENGLISH SPEAKING CITIZENS OF QUEBEC

2017· article· en· W2778617271 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
О. О. Русавська

Bibliographic record

VenueWritings in Romance-Germanic Philology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsFirst languageNarrativeCharacter (mathematics)Norm (philosophy)HistoryPsychologyPolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article deals with the problem of prosodic interference in the English speech of Quebec’ citizens. Canada is the second after France French speaking country in the world. But the majority of the country is inhabited by English speaking Canadians. The present day language situation in Canada is characterized by the existence of two main languages – English and French. For studying peculiarities of English speech melody of Quebec citizens the analysis of main terminal tones and scales in English and French prosodic system was conducted.The perceptive research of the analysed informants' speech showed that each statement inspite of its narrative character is formed by rising or falling-rising terminal tones. The fact that in male and female speech stressed syllables of both final and non-final sense groups are emphasized by voice pitch rising presents a certain interest.In the conducted experiment English native speech is characterized by the peculiarities which are peculiar for the French language prosidy and this fact allows to state that native bilingual speech and obtained French language may serve the source of prosodic interference and may cause violation of prosodic norm of the native 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWritings in Romance-Germanic PhilologySame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207