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
This article investigates learners’ perceptions on pronunciation learning in study-abroad contexts from a qualitative perspective. While previous research focused mainly on quantitative measurements of pronunciation gains with mixed results, this study takes a more learner-centered approach and examines the impact of socio-psychological factors on learning foreign pronunciation, which appears to be a highly individual and at times conflict-prone process with which sojourners are confronted. The study draws on the cases of five Canadian students who studied abroad at German universities for one or two semesters. The data collection involved a learning history questionnaire; semi-structured interviews pre-, mid-, and post-sojourn; and bi-weekly e-journals. The data was analyzed and interpreted within the framework of narrative analysis. The results show how sojourners’ beliefs about the importance of pronunciation, community participation, identity-related challenges, and obstacles to pronunciation learning influence and help explain individually different learning behaviors and results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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