MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020858268 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v4n4p1

To What Extent Does Musical Aptitude Influence Foreign Language Pronunciation Skills? A Multi-Factorial Analysis of Japanese Learners of English

2014· article· en· W2020858268 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew Dolman, Ryan Spring

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronunciationAptitudePsychologyLinguisticsMusicalForeign languageLoudnessStatistical analysisTone (literature)Computer scienceMathematics educationMathematicsStatisticsDevelopmental psychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study looks at the influence of musical aptitude on learners’ pronunciation abilities in a foreign language. Whilethere have been many studies that have claimed a link between the two (Slevc & Miyake 2006, Milovanov 2010,etc.), some studies suggest that this link may not be as strong as initially thought (Jackendoff, 2009, etc.). This studyexamines the pronunciation abilities of Japanese University students of similar English level and varying musicalaptitude, but conducts more in depth statistical analysis than previous studies by comparing specific musical abilities,such as pitch, loudness, rhythm, tone and timing, with specific problematic pronunciation points, the English sounds/r/, /l/, /v/, [θ] and [ð]. The results of our experimentation indicated a statistically significant correlation betweenmusical timing aptitude and the ability to pronounce r and l sounds, but no other significant correlations, indicatingthat perhaps only specific musical abilities have influence on specific aspects of 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207