MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3026470286 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n3p247

Phonotactics in L2 and Pidgin/Creole Languages

2020· article· en· W3026470286 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Mousa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Abdulaziz University
KeywordsPidginCreole languageVowelLinguisticsArabicObstruentPhonotacticsMid vowelConsonant clusterMathematicsPsychologyConsonantFormantPhonologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the production of English initial consonant clusters by Arabic L1 learners of English and speakers of the Broad Jamaican Creole. The clusters Stop + /r/, /S/ + nasal, /S/ + stop, in addition to the production of vowel-initial words are focused on. It was found out that whereas Arab learners produced initial Stop + /r/ and /S/ + nasal words with epenthesis and /S/ + stop words with prosthesis as well as epenthesis, speakers of the Broad Jamaican Creole produced Stop + /r/ and /S/ + stop clusters according to the RP norm and /S/ + nasal with epenthesis. As for vowel-initial words, both groups resorted to the strategy of onset filling (Itô, 1989). Specifically, Arab learners produced these words with glottal stop /ʔ/ before the initial vowel, whereas the Jamaican informants inserted glottal fricative /h/ in the same position. Furthermore, the performance of the two groups was additionally analyzed in light of Optimality Theory.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English Linguistics→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→