Second Language Sentence Stress Assignment: Self‐ and Other‐Assessment
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
Abstract Research on second language (L2) pronunciation self‐assessment reports a general misalignment between self‐ and other‐assessment. This has been attributed to the object of self‐assessment, the self‐assessment task, the measures to which self‐assessment is compared, and speakers’ characteristics. Here, we examined self‐assessment of a discrete phonological feature—sentence stress—by L2 English speakers as compared to the assessment of first language English listeners through a timed, forced‐choice judgment task with low‐pass filtered stimuli, which contained only suprasegmental cues. Additionally, we explored how individual differences among speakers predict self‐assessment. Speakers generally overestimated their accuracy in sentence stress assignment in a pattern resembling the Dunning‐Kruger effect despite the controlled nature of the task. Speakers with larger vocabulary size judged their sentence stress assignment as correct more often and showed greater overconfidence and miscalibration. Finally, the assessments of speakers with a background in applied linguistics and/or language teaching were more aligned with listeners’ assessments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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