MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7160895901 · doi:10.1121/10.0041339

Merged perception of PIN and PEN: Interspeaker variation or partial merger in perception?

2025· article· en· W7160895901 on OpenAlexaff
Irene B. Smith, Meghan Clayards

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionCategorizationCodaVariation (astronomy)Task (project management)GeneralizationContrast (vision)Bin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Merged production of /ɪ/ and /ɛ/ before nasal consonants is well documented in Southern US English. In a previous study of merged perception of the /ɪ/-/ɛ/ contrast, we found that Southern listeners were partially merged in perception, in the sense that they were less sensitive to the contrast pre-nasally than pre-orally, but still not fully merged. However, the existence of individual partially merged Southern listeners was left unexplored. In the present study, we ask how many of the Southern individuals are partially merged in perception, as opposed to being fully merged or not merged. A 2AFC perception task asked US listeners from inside or outside the South to categorize stimuli on continua from bid to bed and bin to Ben. We fit a logistic regression model on probability of /ɛ/ responses as a function of continuum step, coda nasality, and individual. We found that most Southern listeners were partially merged, and the remainder were split between fully merged and not merged. In contrast, most non-Southern listeners were not merged. This finding supports the generalization that partial merger in perception is possible at the individual level, and indeed it is the most common outcome for the Southern individuals in this study.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→