MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998948935 · doi:10.1109/iciet.2007.4381302

Speaker Accent Classification System Using a Fuzzy Gaussian Classifier

2007· article· en· W1998948935 on OpenAlexaff
Sameeh Ullah, Fakhri Karray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixture modelStress (linguistics)Hidden Markov modelComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionVector quantizationFuzzy logicGaussianClassifier (UML)Cluster analysisPhonetic transcriptionSpeaker recognitionFuzzy clusteringFeature vectorSpeaker diarisation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A speaker's accent is the most important factor affecting the performance of automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems. This is due to the fact that accents vary widely, even within the same country or community. The reason may be attributed to the fuzziness between the boundaries of phoneme classes, a result of differences in a speaker's vocal tract and accent. In this paper, a new method of accent classification is proposed that is based on fuzzy Gaussian mixture models (FGMMs). The proposed method first uses a fuzzy clustering to fuzzily partition the data. In this way, fuzzy memberships to the cluster centres are determined by minimizing the distance between the cluster centres and feature vectors. Afterwards, a GMM classifier is trained by using the fuzzy Gaussian parameters to classify the speaker's accent. The experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms the Gaussian Mixture models, Vector Quantization modeling method, Hidden Markov Model, and Radial Basis Neural Networks.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207