An Empirical Study of Language Syllabification using Syllabary and Lexical Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language syllabification is the separation of a word into written or spoken syllables.The study of syllabification plays a pivotal role in morphology and there have been previous attempts to study this phenomenon using graphs or networks.Previous approaches have claimed through visual estimation that the degree distribution of language networks follows the Power Law distribution, however, there have not been any empirically grounded metrics to determine the same.In our study, we implement two kinds of language networks, namely, syllabary and lexical networks, and investigate the syllabification of four European languages: English, French, German and Spanish using network analysis and examine their small-world, random and scale-free nature.We additionally empirically prove that contrary to claims in previous works, although the degree distribution of these networks appear to follow a power law distribution, they are actually more in agreement with a log-normal distribution, when a numerically grounded curve-fitting is applied.Finally, we explore how syllabary and lexical networks for the English language change over time using a database of age-of-acquisition rating words.Our analysis further shows that the preferential attachment mechanism appears to be a well-grounded explanation for the degree distribution of the syllabary network.
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 | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".