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
Among the differences between Montreal and Standard French are the laxing of high vowels in front of a final consonant and a tense-lax contrast of non-high vowels in that syllabic context.While those facts are well documented, most analyses concentrate on the phonetic properties of the vowels and rarer are the attempts to theoretically explain the vocalic distribution.This paper aims to account for the distribution of vowel length and ATRness in the last syllable of Montreal French words.It provides an analysis of the vowel system of Montreal French in (Standard) Government Phonology.It aims to discuss an area rarely previously treated in this representational, phonologically (rather than phonetically) based, formal model.Its major claim is that several apparently unrelated aspects of the tense-lax dimension of Montreal French vowels are given an insightful account if we resort to the concept of the headedness of phonological expressions and the alignment of heads between dominant and recessive prosodic positions contracting dependency relations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it