Disentangling professional competence and foreign accent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined listeners’ evaluations of first (L1) and second language (L2) English speech in work-related contexts. Ninety-six English-speaking listeners from Calgary rated audio recordings of 12 English speakers (6 L1 English, 6 L1 Tagalog) along three continua capturing one professional (competence), one experiential (treatment preference), and one linguistic (comprehensibility) dimension. The audio recordings additionally differed in terms of job prestige (high vs. low) and performance level (high vs. low). Compared to English speakers, Tagalog speakers were rated as less competent and comprehensible overall, and listeners wished to be treated more like the clients in scenarios recorded by English than Tagalog speakers, with all effects magnified for speakers with heavier foreign accents. Nonetheless, listeners generally evaluated English and Tagalog speakers similarly in low-prestige and in low-performance scenarios, but rated low performance less negatively in low-prestige positions. Findings demonstrate highly nuanced accent bias in work-related contexts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".