Setting segmental priorities for English learners: Evidence from a longitudinal study
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 Contemporary views of adult pronunciation instruction emphasize the development of intelligible speech using empirically-validated pedagogical principles. Because learners typically have limited time for pronunciation work, instruction should be provided in a way that maximizes the use of the available opportunities. However, achievement of such a goal entails applying detailed knowledge of the phonetic learning process with due attention to the nature of differences that arise among learners, whether they share or do not share the same native language. In this longitudinal investigation, we examined productions of consonants and consonant clusters in English learners from two language backgrounds over a two-year period. Extensive between- and within-group variability was observed, with some targets produced very well at the outset, and others improving over time. The results argue against a common curriculum for learners. Instead, pronunciation instruction that focuses on individual learners' needs is called for. The findings are discussed in terms of strategies that might be used to develop effective and efficient pedagogical practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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