MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400287502 · doi:10.1121/10.0027632

Spectral properties of Quebec French sibilants

2024· article· en· W4400287502 on OpenAlexaffabout
Massimo Lipari, Morgan Sonderegger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most acoustic work on sibilants has focused on English /s/ and /ʃ/, examining spectra of the middle portion of these consonants. Voiced sibilants, which are rarer cross-linguistically (Ohala, 1983), as well as sibilants in other languages, have received less attention; in particular, there has been no previous work on Quebec French. Previous cross-linguistic studies have suggested important differences in sibilant acoustics exist between languages (Gordon et al., 2002), including in the dynamics of spectral properties over the course of the segment (Reidy, 2016). This study adds to the literature on the typology of sibilant acoustics by examining the spectral dynamics of sibilants in Quebec French (/s, ʃ, z, ʒ/). ∼28 k word-initial, pre-vocalic tokens from more than 100 speakers are extracted from a large corpus of parliamentary speech (Milne, 2014). For each token, multitaper spectra (Reidy, 2013) over a 20 ms window are calculated at 17 equidistant points. A variety of acoustic measures, including segment duration and spectral moments, are reported. Preliminary results examining static measures reveal that the anterior sibilants have higher spectral speak (∼5700 Hz vs ∼4600 Hz for posterior ones), as expected; unlike in English, however, / s/ and /ʃ/ have similar average duration.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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