MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1996729857 · doi:10.1121/1.4808943

Developmental study of the relationship between F0 and formant frequencies.

2008· article· en· W1996729857 on OpenAlexaff
Peter F. Assmann, Terrance M. Nearey, Sneha V. Bharadwaj, Daniel J. Hubbard, Anu Jayaraman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantVocal tractVowelCorrelationAudiologyAcousticsFundamental frequencyMathematicsSpeech recognitionMedicineComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a systematic relationship between fundamental frequency (F0) and formant frequencies in natural speech across adult talkers, associated with anatomical differences in the length of the vocal tract and vocal folds. In the present study we examined developmental trends in this relationship using a database of vowel recordings from adults and children ranging from 5 to 18 years of age from the Dallas, Texas region. A moderate correlation was found between the geometric mean of the formant frequencies (F1–F3) across all of the vowels for a given speaker (a measure related to vocal tract length) and the geometric mean F0. Overall the correlation was higher in males (r=0.87) than in females (r=0.46) and increased as a function of age. The presence of systematic covariation between F0 and formant frequencies is consistent with studies showing a perceptual contribution of F0 to vowel identification.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→