An examination of the perceptions of Cuban and Peninsular Spanish varieties by native, second language learners of Spanish, and monolingual English speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals have been found to make judgments on a person’s personality, income, education, and employment in as little as 30 seconds after listening to their voice. This study investigates the perceptions of Cuban and Peninsular Spanish varieties by native Cuban and Peninsular Spanish speakers, second language (L2) Spanish learners, and monolingual English speakers, to analyze whether (i) these groups differ in their ability to recognize these varieties, and (ii) whether there is stigma attributed to either accent. The study consisted of 5 Cuban (Havana) and 5 Peninsular (Madrid) voices which were disguised and rated by 20 adult listeners. The methodology included the administration of a Bilingual Language Profile (BLP) questionnaire and a survey intended to gauge at listeners’ perceptions. Results revealed that listeners do make unconscious assumptions on an individual’s voice, as the Peninsular variety was often attributed to a higher educational level (84% SP, 48% CU), income (60% SP, 40% CU), and was more closely associated with a CEO position (32%), while the Cuban voice was associated with being funnier and slightly more intelligible. Furthermore, native Cuban listeners were found to outperform all other groups in their ability to correctly categorize the accents with an accuracy rate of 92%.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".