Articulatory Methods for the Study of Second Language Speech
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
In the introduction to this special issue on articulatory approaches to the study of L2 speech, we first highlight the interest and unique contributions of such methods to the investigation of speech production among second language speakers. This is followed by a brief overview of the four articulatory methods-electropalatography, nasometry, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound-featured in the experimental studies presented in the seven articles that constitute the issue. We then turn to an overview of the speech phenomena investigated-consonants (laterals, rhotics), vowels (individual as well as entire inventories), and sequences (both phonemic vowel-nasal sequences as well as coarticulation in phonetic sequences)-as produced by L1 speakers of various target languages (L1s: English[-Croatian], Czech, French, Japanese, Mandarin, Spanish; Target languages: English, French, Swedish). This introduction concludes with a summary of recurring acquisition themes (L1-based crosslinguistic influence, relative difficulty and target-likeness, inter-learner variability including as conditioned by individual differences) and the general speech phenomena studied (articulatory settings, gestural timing/coarticulation, effects of phonetic context).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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