Production et prononciation des consonnes liquides /R/ et /l/ du français standard chez des apprenants non francophones. Le cas du cours de phonologie à l’Université de Calgary.
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
This thesis focuses on the pronunciation of non-francophone university students enrolled in a phonology course (FREN 489.01) by analyzing the oral production of two phonemes of standard French, /R/ and /l/. This is done to determine whether or not they achieve a more native like pronunciation. We will analyze a corpus of learners enrolled in the course mentioned above and a control group of students not enrolled in this course by using recorded speech samples, questionnaires and evaluations of the recorded speech samples by a group of francophones. We also propose to do a comparative study of the study group’s results with the results of the control group in order to determine whether the phonology course helped learners improve their pronunciation. In addition to analysing production at the segmental level, we will also discuss production at the suprasegmental level, particularly in regards to accent, intonation and fluency. By learning the fundamental elements of language and the differences between their L1 (first language) and L2 (second language), students can deepen their connection and understanding of culture and its language in both oral and written formats.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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