MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3217249223 · doi:10.1121/10.0007653

Speaking rate and language-specific voice onset time effects on burst amplitude: Cross-linguistic observations and implications for sound change

2021· article· en· W3217249223 on OpenAlexaff
Chandan Narayan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelAmplitudeVoiceArticulation (sociology)Voice-onset timeAcousticsTamilPerceptionAudiologyLinguisticsMathematicsPsychologySpeech recognitionComputer sciencePhysicsMedicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between speaking rate and burst amplitude in voiceless plosives was investigated in two languages with differing oro-laryngeal timing implementations of phonological voicing, North American English and Indian Tamil. Burst amplitude (reflecting both intraoral pressure and flow geometry of the oral channel) was hypothesized to decrease in CV syllables with increasing speaking rate, which imposes temporal constraints on both intraoral pressure buildup behind the oral occlusion as well as respiratory air flow. Increased speaking rate led to decreased burst amplitude (relative to vowel amplitude) in both languages, with the magnitude of the effect being considerably weaker in Tamil, which has short-lag implementation of voice onset time. Bilabials in both languages were affected disproportionately relative to other places of articulation. Additionally, burst amplitudes were lower overall in Tamil, reflecting lower intraoral pressure which promotes faster vocalic onset. Results are discussed in terms of language-internaland extra-linguistic phonetic phenomena potentially serving as perceptual triggers for historical sound change.

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: Observational · 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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→