Comprehensibility: A Useful Tool to Explore Listener Understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans leur exposé de synthèse, les auteurs traitent du concept de compréhensibilité de la langue seconde (L2) qui s’entend des jugements des auditeurs quant à la facilité ou la difficulté de compréhension du discours en L2. Ils décrivent d’abord brièvement l’intelligibilité et la compréhensibilité, deux indicateurs permettant d’évaluer dans quelle mesure l’auditeur comprend le discours en L2. Ils présentent ensuite des données attestant la valeur de la compréhensibilité comme indicateur de compréhension. Ils font état de leurs observations indiquant que la compréhensibilité de la L2 peut être dynamique, soumise à l’influence sociale et liée à de multiples éléments, relatifs ou non au langage. Enfin, les auteurs analysent de quelle façon les chercheurs, les enseignants, de même que les orateurs et les auditeurs, peuvent aborder la compréhensibilité de la L2 de manière à tenir compte de ses nuances et de sa complexité.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".