Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing involves more than attention to form (e.g., orthography, grammar), since it requires attention to text type, content, and genre. However, most students of English as a second language (L2) tend to prioritize linguistic accuracy in their writing, to the detriment of the content of their texts. Automatic speech recognition (ASR) has the potential to mitigate this, as it reduces the cognitive burden of writing by facilitating the text input process (using a skill most humans possess—speaking), offering assistance in spelling, and allowing a focus on other aspects of the task (e.g., cohesion, content). Automatic speech recognition is not only accessible and free, but it also fulfills Chapelle’s (2001) criteria of an effective computer-assisted language learning tool (e.g., authenticity, learner fit). Despite these affordances, there is a dearth of studies examining the possible affordances of ASR for writing. This mixed methods, one-shot study examines L2 writers’ perceptions of using ASR to write using the technology acceptance model (TAM). Seventeen (N = 17) undergraduate students at a Canadian university were provided with training on Google Voice Typing (Google Docs) and carried out a series of ASR-based writing tasks over a two-hour period. In order to measure their perceptions of the target criteria, participants filled in a TAM-informed survey consisting of statements about their experience with ASR scored on a 7-point Likert scale. To further explore the participants’ perceptions, semi-structured interviews followed. Findings indicate positive perceptions of ASR’s usefulness in terms of language learning and its ease of use due to the user-friendly voice commands. This suggests that ASR has pedagogical potential, thus requiring further examination to determine its optimal use for L2 writing.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it