MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289914531 · doi:10.3765/amp.v9i0.5190

Icy Targets in Karajá ATR Harmony as Contrast Preservation

2022· article· en· W4289914531 on OpenAlexafffund
Avery Ozburn, Marjorie Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContrast (vision)Vowel harmonyHarmony (color)Computer scienceVowelArtificial intelligencePhysicsSpeech recognitionOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel application of Contrast Preservation (Lubowicz 2003) to analyze a puzzling pattern of icy targets (Jurgec 2011). Icy targets are segments which harmonize but then block the spread of harmony, and a particularly theoretically challenging type is present in Karajá, in which derived and underlying [+ATR] high vowels behave differently (Ribeiro 2002;2012). We show that this harmony pattern can be successfully analyzed by considering the behaviour of these icy targets as a form of contrast preservation, where high [-ATR] vowels must harmonize when followed by a [+ATR] vowel, but the underlying contrast between [-ATR] and [+ATR] high vowels is preserved on any preceding vowels. The icy target effect thus emerges as a way to compromise between the pressure to harmonize high vowels and the pressure to preserve underlying ATR contrasts in high vowels. In this way, we extend Contrast Preservation Theory to include vowel harmony patterns, opening new opportunities to analyze puzzling patterns as a choice in which contrasts to preserve.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Meetings on PhonologySame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207