Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the degree of categoriality and discrimination accuracy in the perception of the three-way contrast in Korean stops and affricates by Mandarin speakers. The participants for this study include 44 Mandarin speakers who differ in Korean proficiency level and a control group of 13 native Korean speakers. Perceptual accuracy is assessed through an AX discrimination and an identification task. The result indicates that L2 proficiency plays a significant role in non-native speech perception. Overall, Mandarin listeners with more Korean language proficiency respond to the contrasts more like native Korean speakers than those with less proficiency. However, Mandarin learners of Korean have more difficulty perceiving lenis than aspirated and fortis, while they have less difficulty distinguishing aspirated from lenis and fortis regardless of their proficiency level in Korean. This finding suggests that Mandarin learners rely solely on VOT, which is a primary cue in their native language, when differentiating the Korean contrast, whereas native speakers of Korean use both VOT and F0 to distinguish the contrast. In light of this observation, Mandarin speakers who learn Korean as a foreign language need to focus on both VOT and F0 in order to increase their accuracy in the perception of the Korean contrasts. (University of Toronto)
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.059 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".