MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553218712 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v26i2.412

Morphological Make-up as the Predictor of English Word Accent

2009· article· en· W1553218712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpellingStress (linguistics)OrthographyPronunciationLinguisticsStress (linguistics)PsychologyReading (process)Philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For years, phoneticians have tried to simplify pronunciation for EFL/ESL learners. Some have identified four degrees of primary, secondary, tertiary, and weak stress, and others only three degrees: primary, secondary, and weak. Still others have concentrated on two stress levels: accented versus unaccented, or stressed versus unstressed (Bowen, 1975; Stageberg, 1964; Chomsky & Halle, 1968). None, however, has followed an orthography-based approach to English accent. Because orthography is the most static way of representing words in English, spelling- or orthography-based rules of accent/stress placement may come as a relief to ESL/EFL learners. In this article I present four spelling-based rules for stress placement to help EFL/ESL learners master pronunciation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTESL Canada JournalSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207