CANADIAN PRAIRIE DIALECTS: AN EXPLORATION OF ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN VOWELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has documented the English spoken in Western Canada as generally homogenous with minor variation along a spectrum from British Columbia to Northern/Western Ontario (Labov et al., 2005). This description is investigated on a narrower geographic scale, building a corpus of Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan English (SASE) and comparing the acoustic properties of SASE vowels to those of Edmonton English (EE) as observed in Thomson 2007. The corpus consists of 24 informal interviews as well as word list and passage readings. First and second formants were extracted from the word list (careful speech) context and measurable acoustic differences were found between this data and the EE description. Both speaker groups were found to have similar distributions, however /?/ and /?/ as well as /?/ and /?/ are closer to each other in SASE than in EE, suggesting possible mergers. SASE fronts /u/ and /?/, aligning with shifts noted in the western and southern United States (Clopper, 2005) but also fronts /?/, distancing itself from the Northern Cities Shift which instead describes a backing of /?/ (Labov et al., 2005). We also statistically explore differences in the vowel space using vowel overlap methods (Hay et al., 2006).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".