An electromagnetic articulography investigation of the Czech trill-fricative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have found that the degree of tongue grooving during production of fricatives correlates with their place of articulation. Czech has a cross-linguistically rare alveolar trill-fricative <ř>, which would be expected to pattern in terms of the tongue groove with the alveolar fricatives. The current study employs electromagnetic articulography (EMA) to investigate differences in tongue grooving between the trill-fricative and alveolar/post-alveolar fricatives. Czech native speakers produced words with target consonants in word-initial, intervocalic, and word-final positions, with sensors being attached to both the midline and the sides of the tongue. An angle between these sensors was calculated, and taken as a measure of the degree of grooving. The results (currently based on the data obtained from one speaker) showed that, contrary to the prediction, the degree of grooving for the trill-fricative was closer to the post-alveolar fricatives than to the alveolar fricatives, yet unique in its distribution. While this degree remained relatively temporally stable for the fricatives, it tended to gradually decrease for the trill-fricative. The results thus suggest a unique articulatory configuration for the Czech trill-fricative. [Work supported by SSHRC]
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".