MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121213238 · doi:10.1017/s0142716407070130

Learning prosody and fluency characteristics of second language speech: The effect of experience on child learners' acquisition of five suprasegmentals

2007· article· en· W2121213238 on OpenAlexaff
Pavel Trofimovich, Wendy Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psycholinguistics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignBrigham Young University
KeywordsFluencyPsychologyStress (linguistics)ProsodyRepetition (rhetorical device)ResidenceSentenceStress (linguistics)LinguisticsDuration (music)Task (project management)Language acquisitionMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined second language (L2) experience effects on children's acquisition of fluency-(speech rate, frequency, and duration of pausing) and prosody-based (stress timing, peak alignment) suprasegmentals. Twenty Korean children (age of arrival in the United States = 7–11 years, length of US residence = 1 vs. 11 years) and 20 age-matched English monolinguals produced six English sentences in a sentence repetition task. Acoustic analyses and listener judgments were used to determine how accurately the suprasegmentals were produced and to what extent they contributed to foreign accent. Results indicated that the children with 11 years of US residence, unlike those with 1 year of US residence, produced all but one (speech rate) suprasegmentals natively. Overall, findings revealed similarities between L2 segmental and suprasegmental learning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations93
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied PsycholinguisticsSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207