MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562754239 · doi:10.1109/scw.2002.1215737

A precision-weighted rank-ordering procedure for the combination of voice coder evaluation results

2003· article· en· W1562754239 on OpenAlexaff
J.D. Tardelli, Sander J. van Wijngaarden, H. Hassanein, John Collura

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRank (graph theory)Computer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)AlgorithmSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A precision-weighted rank-ordering procedure was developed for the combination of voice coder subjective evaluation results to provide a final measure of performance for the reference and candidate coders in the NATO 1200/2400 bit/s coder selection project. The combination procedure is based on calculated error propagation, and precision-weighted rank-ordering. The procedure was necessary because the speech performance measurements were of several speech characteristics and used a variety of test methods conducted at multiple laboratories in different languages. The procedure allows for the definition of weights that represent the design criteria by which the coder matches its intended applications. The procedure also imposes implicit weights that are a function of the precision of the individual test methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207