Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recognition of the Canadian language standard means that in Canada, continuous historical interaction of the British and American English standards brought about a special norm which is no longer British or American. The distinguishing features of Canadian prosodic rules serve as the evidence for divergent characteristics of the Canadian linguistic standard in the paradigm of the national variations of the multinational English language. Therefore, Canadian English is an amalgam of American, British, and Canadian English. It includes the literary norm of its own, based on the local linguistic norm, distributed through the system of education and media in the Canadian areas, where the local speech distinctiveness is particularly pronounced and is close to the dialect status.The body of the experimental material, arising from the research aim and the tasks, included 20 episodes of speech from representatives of 4 Canadian areas: provinces Ontario, British Columbia, the Islands of Newfoundland and Labrador, Island of Prince Edward. All experimental texts are quasi-spontaneous monologues of improvised, informal, and laidback nature. These characteristics of a communicative act are the key extralingual factors to feature colloquial speech. This gives the groundings to study these monologue texts as samples of natural colloquial informal speech. The perceptive and instrumental analysis revealed the key speech units of the speech melodies (scales and terminal tones), common and distinguishing features of speech prosody as well as frequent speech parameters, taking into consideration gender and territorial belonging of the Canadians. The bilingual situation in the country, influence of British and American English on Canadians’ pronunciation resulted in emerging of a distinguishing Canadian English with its peculiarities at the prosodic level of the phonological system. The divergent features of Canadian English are associated with re-distribution of functions of American and British prosodic parameters with a due consideration of the new language system requirements, revealed at the prosodic level as a high frequency of descending stepping and level types of scale, ascending and fall-rising terminal tone within the variable nature of basic frequency. The specific national features of the prosodic system of Canadian English is the high frequency of descending and level stepping scales.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".