A Perceptual Study of Phonological Variations in Pakistani English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines the perceptual judgments of English lexical items and English lexical stress by Urdu ESL (Note 1) (English as Second Language) learners. The analysis discusses the different sound systems of both languages and their syllabification system coupled with the stress patterns. The stimuli of 50 high frequency English words were designed as data collection tool for counting the number of syllables and for marking lexical stress as follows: 9 monosyllabic, 11 disyllabic, 10 tri-syllabic, 10 four-syllabic and 10 five-syllabic words. All participating subjects were 40 under graduate students from the department of computer sciences, Sindh Madressatul Islam University (SMIU) Karachi. The findings of the study show English lexical items were syllabified with different numbers and primary stressed syllables were also marked with different places of the lexical items, however, data also show the correct syllabification and the right placement of lexical stress which is a strong evidence manifesting as Urdu-accented English perceived and produced by Urdu ESL learners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".