MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing Google Translate ASR for feedback on L2 pronunciation errors in unpredictable sentence contexts

2023· article· en· W4394983439 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul John, Carol Johnson, Walcir Cardoso

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronunciationSentenceComputer scienceSpeech recognitionTranscription (linguistics)VowelContext (archaeology)Natural language processingPhonetic transcriptionCorrective feedbackWord (group theory)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following previous research into predictable sentence contexts, this study assesses the pronunciation feedback provided by Google Translate’s (GT) Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) in unpredictable contexts. We examined the accuracy of GT transcriptions for target items recorded by male and female Quebec Francophones (QFs). The items occurred in neutral carrier sentences such that no contextual cues help ASR identify the targets. Th-initial vs t-initial (thank-tank) and h-initial vs vowel-initial (heat-eat) items were used to investigate the potential for feedback on the QF errors of th-substitution, h-deletion, and h-epenthesis, comparing real-word (thank→tank) vs nonword output (thief→tief). As with predictable contexts in our previous research, we observed high transcription accuracy for real words only. Without contextual cues, accuracy rates were lower than in predictable contexts for correctly pronounced items but higher than for incorrect pronunciations constituting real words. Unpredictable contexts are thus inferior at confirming correct pronunciation (confirmative feedback) but superior at flagging real-word errors (corrective feedback). Contrary to the anticipated ASR gender bias, female recordings showed higher transcription accuracy than male recordings. Our findings both confirm the usefulness of GT’s ASR for generating pronunciation feedback and highlight the importance of context (predictable vs unpredictable) and lexical status (real vs nonword).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207