MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988876910 · doi:10.1075/cilt.307.09par

Nondistinctive features in loanword adaptation

2009· book-chapter· en· W2988876910 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

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanwordCategorizationLinguisticsMandarin ChineseNull (SQL)PsychologyAdaptation (eye)Speech recognitionComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on a corpus of 500 stops included in 371 borrowing forms from English in Mandarin Chinese (MC), we show that English stop aspiration, which is agreed to be phonetic, does not influence phoneme categorization in MC, despite the fact that MC has phonemic aspirated stops. Thus even if their mother tongue predisposes MC speakers to distinguish aspirated from unaspirated stops, they do not rely on aspiration in English to determine phoneme categorization in MC. Both aspirated and unaspirated voiceless stops of English systematically yield an aspirated stop in MC, whereas English voiced stops, which are disallowed in MC, systematically yield a voiceless unaspirated stop. These facts disfavor the perceptual stance in loanword adaptation and lend support to the phonological 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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.012
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.250 · 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