Research methods in articulatory phonetics <scp>II</scp> : Studying other gestures and recent trends
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
Abstract This article is Part II of a general overview of current methods in articulatory phonetics research (which also consists of Part I “Research methods in articulatory phonetics I: Introduction & studying oral gestures”). The article begins by examining methods employed by phoneticians to investigate laryngeal and nasal gestures—speech‐related configurations of the glottis and the lowering/raising the velum for nasal/oral consonants and vowels. This is done by reviewing the methods of electroglottography, endoscopy, photoglottography, and measurements of airflow and air pressure. The article further examines magnetic resonance imaging and radiography (X‐rays)—the methods employed to investigate the entire vocal tract. The review is concluded with the methods of video recording and optical tracking, as used to study manual gestures in speech and sign language. Each methodological section contains a review of relevant journal publications illustrating the application of the method, as well as references to further readings. The article concludes with an overview of current developments and trends in instrumental articulatory phonetics, and highlight issues requiring further research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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