Speech language pathologists’ beliefs and knowledge-base for providing pronunciation instruction
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 A number of studies have investigated the degree to which language instructors are prepared to offer pronunciation instruction (PI), but little research has addressed the readiness of another group of professionals, speech-language pathologists (SLPs), who are increasingly offering pronunciation instruction under the term foreign accent modification (FAM). To address this gap, the study reported here investigates the extent to which SLPs who offer PI are equipped to do so. We surveyed 54 SLPs who offer PI in North America, focusing on their beliefs, and the extent to which they are able to critically evaluate a range of statements and materials obtained from pronunciation resources. Results indicated that while survey respondents may have transferrable knowledge with respect to the articulation of speech sounds, many of their beliefs and practices are not grounded in a comprehensive understanding of the field. We recommend that SLPs offering PI should first receive specialized training in this area.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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