Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 23, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Spoken native language (L1) identification for second language learners has traditionally relied on acoustic attributes of speech. Comparatively little attention has been paid to analysing speech transcripts for L1 traces. In this paper, we present a study of L1 identification using both speech and corresponding transcripts from a spoken learner English corpus. We compare a WavLM-based audio L1 classifier with a zero-shot GPT-4o classifier operating on transcripts and analyse their predictions across proficiency levels using a CEFR-balanced evaluation set. Our experiments show that the audio classifier outperforms the transcript-based approach overall when full transcripts are available, although their relative strengths vary with learner proficiency. Audio performs better at A1, whereas text performs better from A2 to C1 with full transcripts. Transcript-based accuracy generally increases with proficiency, while acoustic performance remains comparatively stable. Restricting transcript length substantially reduces text-based accuracy, whereas audio is less sensitive to input length and performs relatively well with limited input. These findings provide insights into L1 identification from acoustic and textual representations of learner speech and how performance varies with proficiency and the amount of available language material.