MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1486187507

Pitch-based acoustic feature analysis for the discrimination of speech and monophonic singing

2002· article· en· W1486187507 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingingSpeech recognitionFeature (linguistics)AcousticsComputer scienceFeature extractionFundamental frequencyPitch detection algorithmSpeech processingPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligencePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

this paper. To investigate the perceptual differences between talking and singing, human subjects were exposed to a corpus of singing and talking sounds, and asked first to classify each sound on a scale between speaking and singing, and then to indicate the characteristics of the sounds that lead to their judgements. The subject responses indicated that pitch is a primary factor in making this judgement. Subjects indicated many pitch-based subfeatures including vibrato (similar to Zhang's harmonic ripple), excessively low or high pitch, adherence to a musical scale, and smoothness of pitch. Other features not directly related to pitch include rhythm, rhyme, context and expectation. As will be seen later in this paper, some of these features can also be investigated using pitch as a base feature

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.202 · 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