MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7140348537

Duration and sonority in Blackfoot syllable structure.

2023· other· W7140348537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald Derrick

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Canterbury Research Repository (University of Canterbury) · 2023
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuration (music)SyllableVocal tractVowelSonority hierarchySyllabificationMid vowelGlottis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blackfoot, an Algonquian language spoken in northern Montana and Southern Alberta, reveals mechanisms of syllabification not well-described in Linguistic literature. The Blackfoot alveolar fricative /s/ can occupy any syllable position based on its duration [1]. Blackfoot's back fricative /x/ has a center of gravity based on the preceding vowel and always closes a syllable [2, 3]. Singleton plosives, affricates, nasals, and glides form syllable onsets – glottal plosives can also be codas. Geminates also form part of the nucleus of preceding syllables [2, 3]. Nasals, glides, and vowels all have the same amplitude and duration, but only the vowels form as tautosyllabic nuclei. The production-based mechanism that distinguishes vowels from nasals and glides must therefore include other information, which may be any of acoustical salience, vocal tract constriction, or visible mouth/jaw opening. Taken together, Blackfoot syllables appear to be constructed through an interaction of duration and continuant frication with vocal tract openness.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Canterbury Research Repository (University of Canterbury)French-language works237,207