MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1818556548 · doi:10.1111/lang.12120

Experience Effects on the Development of Late Second Language Learners’ Oral Proficiency

2015· article· en· W1818556548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLinguisticsVocabularyLanguage proficiencyFirst languageVocabulary developmentPronunciationProsodyContrast (vision)Second languageOperationalizationMathematics educationComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of second language (L2) experience–operationalized as length of residence (LOR) in Canada—on late Japanese learners of English. Data collected from 65 participants consisted of three groups of learners (short‐, mid‐, and long‐LOR groups) and two baseline groups of native Japanese and native English speakers, with 13 participants in each group. The global quality of the participants’ spontaneous speech production was initially judged by 10 native‐speaking English raters for accentedness (linguistic nativelikeness) and comprehensibility (ease of understanding) and then submitted to segmental, prosodic, temporal, lexical, and grammatical analyses. According to the results, LOR was generally predictive of improved comprehensibility through its association with adequate and varied prosody, optimal speech rate, and proper lexicogrammar usage. In contrast, contributions of LOR to accentedness remained unclear, with less accented speech linked to refined segmental accuracy, vocabulary richness, and grammatical complexity. These findings suggest that learners continue to improve in their L2 oral proficiency over an extensive period of L2 immersion (e.g., 6 years of LOR), and they likely do so by paying selective attention to certain linguistic domains closely linked to comprehensibility—but not necessarily relevant to accentedness—for the purpose of successful L2 communication.

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.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.320 · 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