MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2987340317 · doi:10.1121/1.5136556

Perceptual biases in consonant perception—Where do we find them? What is behind them?

2019· article· en· W2987340317 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Polka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionReferentConsonantVowelSpeech perceptionCognitive psychologyCategorical perceptionPsychologyLinguisticsComputer scienceSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is no doubt that language experience has an early and profound impact on the perception of phonetic segments. There is now clear evidence that phonetic perception is also shaped by universal perceptual biases that can be exposed as directional asymmetries in phonetic discrimination. Much of this work has focused on vowel perception in which we observe robust perceptual asymmetries in infant and adult L2 perception. To explain these patterns, Polka and Bohn (2003) and (2011) outlined the Natural Referent Vowel (NRV) framework which proposes that vowel perception is shaped by both generic (universal) and language-specific processing. In this talk, I will present data showing perceptual biases in consonant perception which suggest that we can extend NRV principles to consonant perception.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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