An ultrasound and formant study of manner contrasts at four coronal places of articulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines consonant manner of articulation at four coronal places of articulation, using ultrasound and formant analyses of the Australian language Arrernte. Stop, nasal, and lateral articulations are examined at the dental, alveolar, retroflex, and alveo-palatal places of articulation: /t̪ n̪ l̪ / vs /t n l/ vs /ʈɳɭ/ vs /c ɲ ʎ/. Ultrasound data clearly show a more retracted tongue root for the lateral, and a more advanced tongue root for the nasal, as compared to the stop. However, the magnitude of the differences is much greater for the stop∼lateral contrast than for the stop∼nasal contrast. Acoustic results show clear effects on F1 in the adjacent vowels, in particular the preceding vowel, with F1 lower adjacent to nasals and higher adjacent to laterals, as compared to stops. Correlations between the articulatory and acoustic data are particularly strong for this formant. However, the retroflex place of articulation shows effects according to manner for higher formants as well, suggesting that a better understanding of retroflex acoustics for different manners of articulation is required. The study also suggests that articulatory symmetry and gestural economy are affected by the size of the phonemic inventory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".