MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A vitalidade identitária de contornos entonacionais característicos do falar manezinho

2018· article· en· W2899727578 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGragoatá · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes an intonational contour that typifies a dialectal variety of Brazilian Portuguese - “Manezinho” speech - and proposes the hypothesis of an interface between prosody and semantics/pragmatics, as the same intonational contour is interpreted with different meanings by “Manezinho” and non-“Manezinho” speakers. Seara e Sosa (2017), describing this “Manezinho” speech, identified a declarative contour with upstep in older speakers (over 50 years), that had not been yet described in the literature. This contour has an intonational nucleus with a very high peak followed by a drastic drop to the lower register of the speaker, represented phonologically as (LH) ¡H*L% in the Autosegmental-Metrical Theory (Pierrehumbert 1980, amongst other authors). This current research showed that although the younger speakers also use the contour with upstep, their version of it does not exhibit as high a rise as the ones produced by the elders. We conducted a discrimination test with contours with upstep similar to the ones of the older subjects, and by means of an identification test, we identified their semantic-pragmatic value. The discrimination test showed that the contour with upstep is widely used by the younger speakers, even if the rise is not as prominent as that of the older ones. The identification test showed that some prominent contours with upstep were identified by the non-Manezinhos as questions (17%); however, no Manezinho listener interpreted this kind of nucleus as a question. These results seem to suggest that we are facing two distinct varieties, which will require more in-depth analyses. ---DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22409/gragoata.2018n46a1098

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.340 · 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