MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896771671 · doi:10.1121/1.5068351

Pitch duration as a cue for declination

2018· article· en· W2896771671 on OpenAlexaff
Lihan Wu, Hua Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclinationDuration (music)Mandarin ChineseSentenceSyllablePitch contourSpeech recognitionContrast (vision)AcousticsMathematicsAudiologyLinguisticsComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An utterance of a language often demonstrates the effect of declination, usually understood broadly as a reduction in certain physical or acoustic signals. Previous research on declination focuses primarily on the acoustic measures of pitch (such as the movement of pitch or the alternation of pitch span) or intensity. Neglected in the matter is the third acoustic dimension of speech duration. This paper reports on an experiment on declination focusing on pitch duration. The language studied is Mandarin Chinese. Six native Mandarin speakers are recruited. A total of 864 utterances of 2-to-9 syllables in four tones and four functional intonations are recorded and analyzed on Praat. The results show that the declination of pitch duration goes side by side along the pitch declination, both of which share the same physiological basis. Specifically, (1) the average pitch duration within the prosodic unit decreases gradually from the sentence-initial prosodic unit to the sentence-final one, (2) the pitch duration of the left-most syllable of the prosodic unit decreases gradually from the sentence-initial prosodic unit to the sentence-final one, and (3) the pitch duration of the right-most syllable of the prosodic unit decreases slightly from the sentence-initial prosodic unit to the sentence-final one.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→