MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225280569 · doi:10.17507/jltr.1303.05

A Classroom-Centered Study of Third Tone in Mandarin Chinese

2022· article· en· W4225280569 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Language Teaching and Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsGeorge Brown College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandarin ChineseTone (literature)PsychologyThird personLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phonological third tone sandhi studies in Mandarin Chinese will lead more often to a lab-centered research, whereas the incorporation of phonetic tone sandhi studies into phonological analyses will shed a light on a classroom-centered study. This incorporation suggests a revised approach to the third tone sandhi from an articulatory perspective. As a result, the study of pitch values and pitch contours of a third tone are taken over by the study of sound positions and jaw/chin movements. The well-known five-level tonal diagram is challenged and replaced by a seven-level tonal diagram with an application of only two forms of pronouncing a third tone ---pseudo third tone and pseudo second tone. All these aim to investigate a classroom-centered study of a third tone as an understudied area to provide practical guidance for Mandarin instructors and learners of Mandarin as second language.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.415 · 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