Electropalatography examination of groove width in Russian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have indicated a difference between voiced and voiceless pairs of consonants with respect to the pre-constriction vocal tract volume. This study utilizes electropalatography (EPG) to examine the anterior and posterior groove width of palatalized and non-palatalized fricative pairs in Russians in order to observe different degrees of pre-constriction vocal tract volume. Measurements were taken at the point of maximum constriction using Articulate Assistant software. Higher degrees of contact with the palate were taken to indicate smaller pre-constriction vocal tract volume. The preliminary results (based on a single speaker), indicate a significant difference in the degree of contact with the palate between the voiced and voiceless pairs of non-palatalized fricatives. However, the palatalized consonants indicated no significant difference in the degree of contact with the palate. The findings suggest that the smaller vocal cavity created by the secondary articulatory gesture for palatalization is sufficient to facilitate voicing and frication; in the case of the voiced fricatives, the sub-glottal pressure is adjusted to permit vibration of the vocal cords.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".