MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4300284581

Intelligibility of Language Learners to Native Speakers: Evidence from Iranian ESL Learners Conversing with Canadians

2018· article· en· W4300284581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Saber Khaghaninejad, Rahim Fahandejsaadi

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsIntelligibility (philosophy)PsychologyFirst languageSecond language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study attempted to investigate the extent to which phonological characteristics of Farsi interfere with Iranian ESL learners‟ intelligibility when they interact with Canadian native English speakers. Most Iranians who learn English as a foreign or a second language would face phonologically-based difficulties that affect their comprehensibility when they communicate with native speakers. This study utilized a sample of five Iranian ESL learners and five Canadian native speakers as participants. Through the study, Iranian ESL learners underwent an interview and were asked to read twenty paired sentences that contained missing vowels and consonants in Farsi, and ten sentences including consonant clusters aloud while being tape recorded. Then, Canadian native speakers were invited to listen to the tape and declare their degrees of perception accordingly. The findings demonstrated that the phonemes and consonant clusters which do not exist in the Farsi phonological system and the difference in syllabic construction of two languages caused difficulties for Iranian ESL learners to be comprehended to a varying degree.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.361
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicMultilingual Education and Policy→French-language works237,207→