Comparison of the prediction accuracy of machine learning algorithms in crosslinguistic vowel classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning algorithms can be used for the prediction of nonnative sound classification based on crosslinguistic acoustic similarity. To date, very few linguistic studies have compared the classification accuracy of different algorithms. This study aims to assess how well machines align with human speech perception by assessing the ability of three machine learning algorithms, namely, linear discriminant analysis (LDA), decision tree (C5.0), and neural network (NNET), to predict the classification of second language (L2) sounds in terms of first language (L1) categories. The models were trained using the first three formants and duration of L1 vowels and fed with the same acoustic features of L2 vowels. To validate their accuracy, adult L2 speakers completed a perceptual classification task. The results indicated that NNET predicted with success the classification of all L2 vowels with the highest proportion in terms of L1 categories, while LDA and C5.0 missed only one vowel each. Furthermore, NNET exhibited superior accuracy in predicting the full range of above chance responses, followed closely by LDA. C5.0 did not meet the anticipated performance levels. The findings can hold significant implications for advancing both the theoretical and practical frameworks of speech acquisition.
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".