MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W126277046

Perceptual Evaluation of Vibrato Models

2005· article· en· W126277046 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibratoSpectral envelopeLoudnessAmplitude modulationEnvelope (radar)MathematicsAcousticsSpeech recognitionModulation (music)TimbreFrequency modulationPerceptionAmplitudeCommunicationPsychologySingingComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsOptics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We promote a clearer definition of vibrato(Seashore, 1932),based on a review of various vibrato features.We also propose a generalised vibrato effect generator that includes spectral envelope modulation,and a frequency-dependent hysteresis behaviour.We then investigate the influence of spectral envelope modulation on perceived quality with a double-blind randomized ABcomparison task.Eight participants listened to12pairs of sounds with vibrato matched for loudness.Each pair included one sound with constant average spectral envelope (identical amplitude modulation over all frequencies) and one with modulated spectral envelope (frequency dependent amplitude modulation).Participants were asked to choose which version sounded the most natural.The statistical analysis revealed a significant preference for sounds with modulated spectral envelope (p<0.001).Our results highlight the need to consider spectral envelope modulation for vibrato modelling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207