Which Features of Accent affect Understanding? Exploring the Intelligibility Threshold of Diverse Accent Varieties
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
Abstract With the ascendency of English as a global lingua franca, a clearer understanding of what constitutes intelligible speech is needed. However, research systematically investigating the threshold of intelligibility has been very limited. In this article, we provide a brief summary of the literature as it pertains to intelligible and comprehensible speech, and then report on an exploratory study seeking to determine what specific features of accented speech make it difficult for global listeners to process. Eighteen speakers representing six English varieties were recruited to provide speech stimuli for two English listening tests. Sixty listeners from the same six English varieties took part in the listening tests, and their scores were then assessed against measurable segmental, prosodic, and fluency features found in the speech samples. Results indicate that it is possible to identify particular features of English speech varieties that are most likely to lead to a breakdown in communication, and that the number of such features present in a particular speakers’ speech can predict intelligibility.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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