MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199177254 · doi:10.1515/opli-2020-0169

A preliminary analysis of intonation patterns in Ecuadorian Cuencano Spanish

2021· article· en· W3199177254 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Linguistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntonation (linguistics)LinguisticsSingingUtteranceStress (linguistics)PsychologyPitch accentHistoryProsodyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract El Cantado Cuencano “Cuencano singing” constitutes the hallmark of Cuencano Spanish: a widely spoken Andean dialect in the Ecuadorian province of Azuay. This colloquially described “singing” makes Cuencano Spanish one of the most distinct dialects of Ecuador. The aim of the present study is to provide a preliminary analysis of intonation patterns from common utterance types in this under documented dialect. A sample of 550 utterances from 11 categories that included declarative statements, yes/no questions, exclamative statements, wh-questions, imperatives, lists, conditionals, tag-questions, interjections, negative statements, and vocatives was collected from five male and five female participants. The tokens were analyzed acoustically and labeled using the Spanish Tones and Break Indices system (Sp_ToBI). Results reveal the presence of a tritonal pitch accent (PA), labeled as L + H* + L and the extensive use of bitonal PAs (namely, L + H*). These three phenomena mark the singing quality of Cuencano Spanish and make it stand out from the dialects of Ecuadorian Spanish.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.353 · 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