MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3006972907 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n2p367

English /r/ in L2 and Pidgin/Creole Languages

2020· article· en· W3006972907 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Mousa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Abdulaziz University
KeywordsCreole languagePidginLinguisticsNorm (philosophy)Production (economics)PsychologyPreferenceMathematics educationComputer scienceMathematicsPolitical scienceStatisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to investigate how Arab L1 learners of English and speakers of the Broad Jamaican Creole cope with the production of the approximant /r/ preconsonantly, post vocalically and in Stop+/r/ clusters, according to the RP norm. To this end, a list of words containing the approximant in the above three environments was given to the two groups, to read. Their production was tape recorded and transcribed. The approximant was nearly totally produced as trill in the three environments by the Arab learners, though one learner managed to produce an American-like /r/ in addition to the trill. On the other hand, the Jamaican informants produced the approximant according to the RP norm and as an American-like /r/. Whereas Lass’s (1984) assumption regarding the preference for trills proved to be true for the Arab learners, it was not the case with the Jamaican informants, in whose production trill was entirely absent. The study also provided further support to the view that phonological acquisition is achieved by gradual reinforcement of motor patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English Linguistics→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→