MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408678082 · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2025.101402

Processing pronunciation variation with independently mappable allophones

2025· article· en· W4408678082 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachel Soo, Molly Babel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phonetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPronunciationVariation (astronomy)Speech recognitionComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• A long-standing merger of /n/ to /l/ in Cantonese has produced [n]- and [l]-initial pronunciation variants that are effectively allophones of syllable-initial /l/ and /n/. • [n] and [l]-initial allophones are distinguishable in perception. • In recognition and encoding paradigms, [n] and [l] allophones are processed neither equivalently nor distinctly when the targets bear the more common [l]-initial allophone. • Error rates are high when the targets bear the [n]-initial allophone. • [n] and [l] are allophonic variants independently mapped to a phoneme, with connection strengths varying. Sound change can present synchronic variation with categorical pronunciation variants. This is the case in Cantonese, where syllable-initial /n/ is merging with /l/, occasionally creating homophones (e.g., lou5 腦 “brain”/ 老“old”) and giving rise to [n]- and [l]-initial pronunciation variants that are allophones. This pronunciation variation offers insight into how variation is processed in spoken word recognition because [n] and [l] in Cantonese are not associated with an orthographic standard. Across four experiments, we examine the perception, recognition, and encoding of Cantonese [n] and [l], and use Bayesian analyses where gradient interpretations are more straightforward. We observe perceptual evidence that these allophones are distinguishable (Exp 2). In recognition (Exp 1) and encoding (Exp 3) paradigms, we find that the [n] and [l] allophones are processed neither equivalently nor distinctly when the targets bear the more common [l]-initial allophone. When the targets bear the [n]-initial allophone (Exp 4), we observe high error rates, and somewhat contradictory results. Altogether, the results suggest that [n] and [l] are allophonic variants independently mapped to a phoneme, with connection strengths varying as a function of the frequency, such that the more common [l]-initial pronunciation demonstrates an overall recognition advantage.

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)0.007
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhoneticsSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207