Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial expressions and speech movements can impose conflicting demands on articulators. For example, the lip spreading movement associated with smiling is incompatible with bilabial closures for /m/, /b/ or /p/. Anecdotal evidence suggests this conflict may resolve as labiodental stop variants (see http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.ca/2012/03/u.html), though this discussion has been controversial [Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996, p. 18]. The simplest model of coarticulation – one of unmediated superposition of muscle activations [Gick et al., 2013, POMA 060207] – predicts that the outcome of this conflict should be determined by summing opposing forces due to competing muscle activations. If so, varying degrees of smile and varying degrees of closure force (e.g., for different stop consonants) should be expected to produce distinct outputs. Previous work suggests that closures for /m/, /b/ and /p/ vary (increasingly) in both intraoral pressure [Lubker & Parris 1970, JASA 47: 625] and muscle force [Gick et al. 2012, JASA 131: 3345]. An experiment will be presented in which bilabial stops are produced under varying smile conditions. Preliminary results indicate that labiodental stop variants occur more frequently for lower-force stops under higher-force smile conditions, as predicted. Implications for models of coarticulation will be discussed. [Funding from NSERC].
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".