Cross-language phoneme mapping for phonetic search keyword spotting in continuous speech of under-resourced languages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As automatic speech recognition-based applications become increasingly common in a wide variety of market segments, thereis a growing need to support more languages. However, for many languages, the language resources needed to train speechrecognition engines are either limited or completely non-existent, and the process of acquiring or constructing new languageresources is both long and costly. This paper suggests a methodology that enables Phonetic Search Keyword Spotting to beimplemented in a large speech database of any given under-resourced language using cross-language phoneme mappings toanother language. The phoneme mapping enables a speech recognition engine from a sufficiently resourced and well-trainedsource language to be used for phoneme recognition in the new target language. The keyword search is then performed overa lattice of target language phonemes. Three cross-language phoneme mapping techniques are examined: knowledge-based,data-driven and phoneme recognition performance-based. The results suggest that Phonetic Search Keyword Spotting basedon the cross-language phoneme mapping approach proposed herein can serve as a quick initial solution for validating keywordspotting applications in new, under-resourced languages.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".