MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521608059 · doi:10.1109/icslp.1996.607430

New efficient fillers for unlimited word recognition and keyword spotting

2002· article· en· W1521608059 on OpenAlexaff
R. El Meliani, Douglas O’Shaughnessy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeyword spottingSpottingComputer scienceWord (group theory)Speech recognitionNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Describes our complete results for improved lexical fillers as well as two new kinds of fillers, gives their results in unlimited speech recognition as well as for keyword spotting and compares them to the acoustic-phonetic filler in the case of keyword spotting. Tests have been conducted on different vocabularies derived from ATIS (Air Travel Information System) and the Wall Street Journal database. Results for keyword spotting show the superiority of the independent lexical phonemic filler that combines accuracy (92% for a false alarm rate of 1.2 FA/h/kw) as well as task-independent training. As for new-word detection, the syllabic and the independent lexical fillers perform quite well, and allow relevant detection of the phonetic transcription.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207