The intelligibility and comprehensibility of French-accented English in an academic context
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 This study investigates the intelligibility and comprehensibility of French-accented speech in an academic context. L1 French and L1 English listeners heard speech samples in three different accent conditions: a marked French accent, an unmarked French accent and a Southern British English (SBE) accent. They were asked to perform two word recognition tasks, a speech comprehension task and provided subjective ratings of certainty, comprehensibility, cognitive load and accentedness. Results showed that for English listeners sharing the same first language (L1) had a facilitating effect, whereas varying the levels of French-accentedness had a detrimental effect. French listeners, however, did not find French-accented speech significantly more intelligible and comprehensible than SBE-accented speech. These findings deepen our knowledge of the relationship between intelligibility, comprehensibility, accentedness and cognitive load.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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