MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109591027 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v1n2p73

A Phonological Contrastive Analysis of Kurdish and English

2011· article· en· W2109591027 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Massoud Rahimpour, Majid Saedi Dovaise

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntonation (linguistics)LinguisticsPhonologyStress (linguistics)Contrast (vision)Contrastive analysisPsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is an attempt to compare and contrast the sound systems of Kurdish and English for pedagogical aims. The consonants, vowels, stress and intonation of the two languages are described using the same model-taxonomic phonology- and then compared and contrasted to find the similarities and differences between the two systems and hence the potential areas of difficulty in teaching English to students whose native language is Kurdish. Forty four phonemes of BBC English have been described and compared with the thirty eight phonemes of Sorani Kurdish. The nature and function of stress and intonation in the two languages have also been compared and contrasted.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.043
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207