MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588164552

Separating normal variation in movement amplitudes from gradient speech errors

2009· article· en· W1588164552 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anneke Slis, Pascal van Lieshout

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetronomeAmplitudeMovement (music)Speech recognitionVariation (astronomy)Set (abstract data type)Data setMathematicsComputer scienceAcousticsStatisticsPhysicsRhythm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was conducted to investigate articulatory constraints and its influence on the occurrence of gestural intrusion and reduction errors. Speech errors were generated by a repetitive speech task and two speech rates were employed. These speech rates included normal and fast that were individually determined for each participants and controlled by metronome presentation. Movement data were recorded with the 3D EMA system and the raw movement amplitudes were normalized such that the maximum amplitude of a constriction per trial was set to 100% and the minimum constriction was set to 0%. Data were presented for the bisyllable topcop in the normal speaking rate condition for 8 participants participating in the study. Correlations were also calculated between the normalized amplitude of the target gesture for each separate trial of the study.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207