Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents a new F0 contour partitioning approach by using the category of prosodic relations also used by Ladd (2008) for improving the F0 contour descriptions based on phonological categories. The new approach involves a cognitive view on the low-high and high-low ’metrical’ structures of prosodic relations, by relating them to the structures of cognitive relations generated during speech object representations at the cortical level. In section 2, the paper presents the information structure model by defining the cognitive categories that describes prosodic relations of F0 contours involving their two overlapped structures and nuclear positions. CU_predicate-CU_argument and CU_theme-CU_rheme are the two structural levels of prosodic relations. The model proposes a binary-tree hierarchy to describe the articulation of prosodic relations within utterances. Two rules are formulated for the identification of nuclear constituents of prosodic relations. The utterances analysed in section 3 illustrate how prosodic and prominence relations can be identified by analysing acoustic cues of their F0 contours. Utterances correspond to English borad focus and narrow focus statements. Focus positions are deduced by only using the rule of the cognitive model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".