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
Although there is consistent evidence that higher levels of processing, such as learning the form-meaning associations specific to the second language (L2), are a source of difficulty in acquiring L2 speech, no study has addressed how these levels interact in shaping L2 perception and production of intonation. We examine the hypothesis of whether access to contextual meaning increases the chances of first language (L1) influence on L2 intonation. To test this hypothesis, we compared the perception and production of sentential English focus by 27 advanced English language learners ( n = 13 L1 Mandarin speakers; n = 14 L1 Spanish speakers) and 13 controls, through a series of tasks that promoted different levels of access to meaning. Results showed that L1 transfer was especially clear in Spanish speakers. Not only did they consistently differ from controls in their perception of focalized verbs and subjects, showing their L1 bias to perceive focus at the end of a sentence, but they were also the only group of speakers that inserted pauses after the focalized word, which showed strong L1 effects. Moreover, these L1 transfer effects were more obvious in contextualized tasks, which indicated that facilitating access to meaning by adding context increased L1 transfer effects on the perception and especially on the production of focus intonation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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