Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1986, Phonetica instituted an editor for North America, in order to increase public relations with the scientific community in the United States and Canada, to solicit more papers of high quality from researchers in these countries and to speed up the reviewing process of submissions from outside Europe.John Ohala was the first to take over and to get things moving.When in 1989 he felt the time was ripe for him to hand over to someone else he suggested Randy Diehl and persuaded him to become his successor.In 10 years of hard work and great motivation for the journal and for the scientific study of speech, Randy helped to shape Phonetica into a leading publication forum for phonetic science integrating speech signal analysis with linguistic and psychological perspectives.It is particularly due to him that the publication of the journal is now back on schedule.The publisher, the editorial board and the readership owe him a great vote of thanks.With John Kingston the third 'generation' of North American editors has taken over, effectively with this volume, but in preparation of a smooth transition both the old and the new editor have been collaborating since September last year.And both they and the general editor have joined forces, in conjunction with Olle Engstrand, to put together papers from a symposium held in honour of Björn Lindblom on the occasion of his 65th birthday in June 1999, as a Festschrift to appear in this year's volume of Phonetica.This collaborative project has been as enjoyable as it was productive, at the same time rounding off the previous editorship and introducing the new editor for North America.Many thanks, Randy, and all good wishes for the work ahead, John. Klaus J. KohlerMy first reaction to being asked to take on the North
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.226 | 0.169 |
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".