Learner Pronunciation, Awareness, and Instruction in French as a Second Language
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined the speech of 30 adult learners of French as a second language (L2) in a 15‐week listening/speaking course, investigating the relationship between learners' pronunciation development and their pronunciation awareness, measured through learners' conceptions of learning. The course targeted segmental and suprasegmental aspects, including connected speech processes (enchaînement, liaison), intonation, and fluency. Learners wrote weekly journals eliciting measures of pronunciation awareness and completed read‐aloud and picture description tasks at the course's beginning and end. Speech was analyzed through seven measures, including fluency and segmental and suprasegmental accuracy. Results showed significant improvements in learners' segmental production, enchaînement, and some aspects of intonation and fluency. Several variables were associated with pronunciation awareness measures. Results are discussed in light of L2 pronunciation development and instruction‐awareness links.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it