Деякі особливості варіативності голосних у канадській англійській \n(Some peculiarities of Variabilities in Canadian English)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Дослідження присвячено аналізу особливостей вокалізму у спонтанному мовленні носіїв канадського варіанту англійської мови. Результати проведеного аудиторського аналізу варіативності голосних наочно продемонстрували певні труднощі в сприйнятті монофтонгів у приголосному оточенні, як в позиції перед веляризованим [l], так і після нього. \n(The given investigation is dedicated to the analysis of vowel peculiarities in Canadian English spontaneous speech. English being the state language in Canada is under the influence of American English as some linguists say. According to David Crystal English speaking Canadians are against their language being considered as American variant. It is also necessary to admit that the problem of contemporary English status in Canada is only possible to decide on the basis of studying its differentiating features on all the language levels – phonological, morphological, syntactic, lexical and semantic. That is why due to the appearance of different variants of English linguists underline the necessity of describing their typology, likeness and difference. The problem of allophonic variation in Canadian English remains understudy, so it stipulates the actuality of the chosen theme. The system of Canadian vowels differ from that of American and the results of the conducted auditory analysis of vowel variation demonstrated definite difficulties of monophthongs’ perception in consonant surrounding, both in the position before velar [l] and after it.)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".