Phonetic cue competition within multiple phonological contrasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work examines Seoul Korean listeners’ perception of the five Korean sibilants: affricates /c′, c, c h / and fricatives /s′, s/. Natural productions of the consonants were manipulated to vary orthogonally along several phonetic parameters relevant to the place/manner contrast ((denti)alveolar fricative vs. (palato)alveolar affricate) and the laryngeal contrast (fortis vs. lenis vs. aspirated). Of particular interest was listeners’ representation of /s/, whose laryngeal status is ambiguous. All manipulated parameters (baseline consonant and vowel affiliation, fundamental frequency at vowel onset, frication duration, and aspiration duration) influenced categorization, with consonant and vowel spectral information playing the primary role in distinguishing most sibilants. However, f 0 , a laryngeal cue, trumped place and manner cues in affricate vs. fricative classification, highlighting the increasing importance of f 0 in Korean segmental phonology.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".