MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1600818689 · doi:10.1109/icassp.1983.1172259

Further experiments in text-independent speaker recognition over communications channels

2005· article· en· W1600818689 on OpenAlexaff
Melvyn J. Hunt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeech recognitionComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Noise (video)CepstrumVariation (astronomy)Speaker recognitionMel-frequency cepstrumTelephonyData setPattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments are described in automatic, text-independent speaker recognition using three databases: good quality read speech, conversations over simulated telephone links, and conversations over real telephone links. A recognition system is evaluated on this material using a set of features which were believed to have some resistance to transmission degradations, namely, F <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">0</inf> statistics and statistics of low-order cepstrum coefficient variation. Performance is reasonable on the first two databases but poor on the telephone speech. A new set of features based on the frequencies of peaks in the short-term smoothed spectrum is found to perform better on the telephone speech, presumably because of its greater resistance to noise and nonlinear distortions. A computer simulation of the recognition experiments is described. The results of the simulation indicate that performance estimates from recognition experiments should be allowed wide error tolerances, and they illustrate the danger of trying too many features on the same database.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207