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
Phonetics, intonation, and pronunciation are integral parts of language learning. However, they are not often an actual part of the content of language classes. One reason may be that teachers are not necessarily trained in phonetics and therefore are reluctant to make this component a part of their teaching. Another reason may be that the proper tools are not being used or that the proper tools are not being used appropriately in order to assist teachers and students in integrating phonetics into the curriculum. This article describes a two phase experiment that was conducted at the University of Ottawa using audiocassettes and multimedia while teaching French, specifically French phonetics, intonation, and pronunciation, to a group of low-intermediate level language students. The present study addresses three questions: (a) Are the receptive and productive skills of intermediate-level learners of French as a second language influenced by the explicit teaching of phonetic and prosodic elements? (b) if so, which delivery mode is the most effective to teach these elements: audio cassettes or multimedia? and (c) what are the students’ preferences with regards to these two delivery modes?
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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