Acoustic Characteristics of Rhotic Vowel Productions of Young Children
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study examined the acoustic characteristics of perceptually acceptable rhotic vowels produced by young children with and without speech sound disorders (SSDs). Productions were analyzed in relation to the overall rhotic proficiency level of each child, as determined by rhotic vowel and consonant accuracy. The effect of the surrounding phonetic contexts on acoustic realization of rhotic vowels was also examined. METHODS: Participants included 18 children aged 2-6 years with and without SSD, grouped by overall rhotic sound proficiency (high rhotic proficiency: ≥70% correct rhotic consonants and vowels; intermediate rhotic proficiency: ≤30% correct rhotic consonants, but ≥70% correct rhotic vowels; low rhotic proficiency: ≤30% correct rhotic consonants and vowels). Target sounds included stressed and unstressed rhotic monophthongs ([ɝ] and [ɚ], respectively) and 4 rhotic diphthongs that differ by pre-rhotic vowel type (/ɪ͡ɚ/, /ɛ͡ɚ/, /ɔ͡ɚ/, /ɑ͡ɚ/). F3 and F3-F2 measures were compared across groups and contexts. RESULTS: No significant differences in F3 and F3-F2 by rhotic sound proficiency group were found in rhotic vowels produced by children with above 70% rhotic vowel accuracy, regardless of their proficiency with rhotic consonants. Acoustic patterns differed by phonetic contexts, but the effect varied by rhotic sound proficiency group. CONCLUSION: Results showed that once children learn to produce rhotic vowels, they show a comparable degree of rhoticity as those produced by children with high rhotic vowel and consonant accuracy. Results also suggest that rhotic sounds develop earlier in certain phonetic contexts than in others (e.g., [ɝ] before [ɚ]; /ɪ͡ɚ/ and /ɑ͡ɚ/ before /ɔ͡ɚ/).
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it