MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389082722 · doi:10.1121/10.0022726

An quantitative analysis of Punjabi tones

2023· article· en· W4389082722 on OpenAlexaff
Kiranpreet Nara

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelSentenceTone (literature)Realization (probability)MathematicsFalling (accident)AcousticsSpeech recognitionAudiologyComputer scienceLinguisticsPsychologyStatisticsMedicineArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Punjabi has three tones, the falling and the rising tones developed due to the historically lost voiced aspirated consonants and word-final glottal fricative /ɦ/, and the default tone occurred elsewhere. While there has been some experimental research on Punjabi tones, there have been limitations due few stimuli and speakers. The main aim of the current study was to provide a phonetic examination of the fundamental frequency (f0) patterns across a large number of Punjabi words produced by multiple speakers. The experiment was conducted online using 24 native speakers (9F, 15M) of Indian Punjabi. The list of stimuli contained 66 monosyllabic words (default = 18, falling = 15, rising = 33) with either /a/ or /ə/. The speakers were recorded producing the stimuli in carrier and natural sentence environments. Linear mixed effects analyses were conducted on six f0 measures: the onset, mid, and offset of the vowel, the f0 range (MaxF0-MinF0), and the f0 trajectory in the first (MidF0-BegF0) and final (EndF0-MidF0) halves of the vowel. The results confirmed three distinct pitch curves for the three tones. Each of the three tones were distinguished from one another for the onset f0 and the EndF0-MidF0 measures. Vowel quality influenced tone realization. Between-speaker and word variation was observed.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.356 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→