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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
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