MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306249762 · doi:10.1515/lingvan-2021-0122

Phonetic change over the career: a case study

2022· article· en· W4306249762 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josiane Riverin-Coutlée, Jonathan Harrington

Bibliographic record

VenueLinguistics Vanguard · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Perspective (graphical)PsychologyLinguisticsLongitudinal studyFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study is concerned with phonetic flexibility in adulthood. Through a longitudinal analysis of the speech of the public French speaker Michaëlle Jean, we explore the relationship between an individual’s phonetic characteristics and career path. We carried out an acoustic analysis of the contextual tense-lax split of the high vowels /i y u/, a phonetic feature of Quebec French that is not found in other French-speaking areas. Sixty-two recordings spanning three decades and divided into five different stages of the speaker’s career were considered. The results showed that Jean produced the tense-lax split as a journalist based in Quebec, but progressively suppressed it as her career became more international, after which a reversal of the trend was observed. Taken together, these results indicate that a certain phonetic flexibility is maintained over the lifespan, and that career is an influential external factor that could be more frequently considered in sociolinguistic studies. From a broader perspective, our study contributes to a better understanding of language use during social ageing, which has proven to be less linear than chronological ageing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLinguistics VanguardSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207