Articulatory coordination distinguishes complex segments from segment sequences
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phonological patterning motivates a distinction between complex segments and segment sequences, although it has also been suggested that there might be reliable phonetic differences. We develop the hypothesis that, in addition to their distinct phonological patterning, complex segments differ from segment sequences in how constituent articulatory gestures are coordinated in time. Through computational simulation, we illustrate predictions that follow from hypothesised coordination differences, showing as well how coordination is conceptually independent of temporal duration. We test predictions with kinematic data collected using electromagnetic articulography. Electromagnetic articulography data comparing labial-palatal gestures in Russian, which we argue on the basis of phonological facts to constitute complex segments, and similar labial-palatal gestures in English, which we argue constitute segment sequences, show distinct patterns of coordination, providing robust support for our main hypothesis. At least in this case, gestural coordination conditions patterns of kinematic variation that clearly distinguish complex segments from segment sequences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 it