MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338234777 · doi:10.18192/olbiwp.v5i0.1120

Mobile speech recognition software: A tool for teaching second language pronunciation

2013· article· en· W2338234777 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueOLBI Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronunciationConversationVowelPerceptionComputer scienceSoftwarePhoneticsTest (biology)Speech recognitionPsychologyMultimediaLinguisticsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the impact of the pedagogical use of mobile automatic speech recognition software (ASR) on the acquisition of the French vowel /y/ in production and perception. The participants were 42 beginner French students with no previous training in French phonetics and exposure to speech recognition software. They were divided into three experimental groups: (1) the ASR Group used an ASR application installed on their mobile devices to complete weekly pronunciation activities, with immediate written visual (textual) feedback provided by the software; (2) the Non-ASR Group completed the same weekly pronunciation activities in individual weekly sessions with a teacher, who provided immediate oral feedback using recast and repetitions; finally, (3) the Control Group participated in weekly individual meetings “to practice their conversation skills” with a teacher, who provided no pronunciation feedback. Following a pre-test/post-test design, our findings indicate that the ASR Group outperformed the other groups in French /y/ production, but not in perception.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.313 · 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