MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995014979 · doi:10.1121/1.4783360

Measuring articulatory similarity with algorithmically reweighted principal component analysis.

2009· article· en· W1995014979 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Mielke, Joseph Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisSimilarity (geometry)Context (archaeology)Pattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsVariance (accounting)Cross-validationInterpolation (computer graphics)Variation (astronomy)Vocal tractComputer scienceSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceStatisticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Articulatory similarity was assessed for a corpus of 2700 ultrasound images of 75 cross-linguistically frequent speech sounds produced by four subjects in three segmental contexts (a_a, i_i, u_u). Cross-distances were generated for the entire length of the vocal tract using the Palatron algorithm and realistic estimates of the location of the pharyngeal wall and teeth, resulting, after interpolation, in 60 cross-distances per token. A standard principal component analysis of these data is overwhelmed by the coarticulatory effects of the context vowels. Algorithmically reweighted principal component analysis was devised in order to use coarticulatory variation to isolate the most distinctive cross-distances for each target segment. The reweighting algorithm considers the variance across repetitions in each of the 60 cross-distances, as well as variance in the slope of the cross-distance function, in order to identify areas of stability across tokens. For each target sound, cross-distances with the greatest variance are reset to the mean for all target segments, while cross-distances with the least variance maintain their original values. This has the effect of defining each target sound by the cross-distances, which are most stable across contexts.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207