MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410315950 · doi:10.1075/jslp.24057.lu

Linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and perceived fluency in L2 speech across tasks of varying complexity

2025· article· en· W4410315950 on OpenAlexaff
Jialiang Lu, Reiko Sato

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Second Language Pronunciation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluencyLinguisticsPsychologyCognitive psychologySpeech perceptionLinguistic sequence complexitySpeech recognitionComputer sciencePerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigated the effects of task complexity on the linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and perceived fluency in L2 Japanese. 36 Chinese-speaking learners of Japanese performed two argumentative speech tasks with differing levels of complexity. These audio samples were judged by eight experienced native raters of Japanese for comprehensibility and perceived fluency and then analyzed in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The results showed that linguistic correlates of comprehensibility exhibit a task-specific effect, with additional linguistic dimensions (e.g., syntactic density, explicit grammatical marking) becoming increasingly relevant as task complexity rises. In contrast, perceived fluency also undergoes a task-specific shift but differently: rather than expanding the set of predictors, it changes the nature of primary cues, placing greater emphasis on syntactic sophistication alongside (but not replacing) temporal aspects. Findings underscore the unique role of Japanese linguistic system in shaping listeners’ judgments of L2 Japanese.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Second Language PronunciationSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207