MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199850438 · doi:10.32473/sal.v50i2.125996

Tone alternation in Dagaare verbs: Perfectives and Imperfectives

2021· article· en· W3199850438 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Angsongna

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in African Linguistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTone (literature)LinguisticsMelodySuffixSyllableAlternation (linguistics)MorphemeNounVerbSpeech recognitionMathematicsComputer sciencePhilosophyMusical

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While previous studies on Dàgáárè tone have looked at the nouns, this paper particularly examines tone in verbs, perfective vs imperfective forms. The verbal system has different patterns based on the form of the verb. There are three tone classes for Dàgáárè verbs and for each of the classes, the surface tone pattern it exhibits in the perfective is systematically different from the tone patterns in the imperfective. For the perfectives we have L, H and HL while the imperfectives have LH, HL and H!H, at least in the dialect under study. I treat tone as a combination of the features [±upper] and [±raised] which are connected to what is described as a Tone node (T-node). These Tone nodes in turn connect to the syllable. Under this system, I assume L is represented with the features [-upper] and [-raised] and H with the features [+upper] [+raised]. Underlying tonal melodies of the root morphemes are identical to the surface tones of the perfective forms whether these contain an overt suffix or not. For the imperfectives, the suffix comes with an unspecified underlying T-node. The grammar then chooses the features [±upper] and [±raised] to insert under the already existing T-node.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.386 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in African LinguisticsSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207