Acoustic correlates of flaps in North American English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using B/M mode ultrasound, Derrick & Gick (2010) identified four categorical variations of flaps in North American English, up-flaps, down-flaps, alveolar taps, and postalveolar taps produced in English. These variants can be used to test hypotheses about constraints on speech articulation, such as local context, gravity and elasticity, speech rate, and longer distance anticipatory coarticulation. This study examines acoustic correlates of flap variations in order to make connections between the results of larger, and easier to collect, acoustic databases and the tongue movements underlying flap productions. Preliminary analyses using smoothing spline ANOVAs of z-score normalized f0, F1, F2, F3, F4 and F5 indicate significant differences in each dependent variable for flaps in non-rhotic vowel contexts. The results for flaps adjacent to rhotic vowels is more complex, requiring more detailed analysis. Based on these results, we are currently planning supervised hierarchical clustering to aid in probabilistic identification of flap variants, with reference to both vocalic context and syllable structure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".