Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smiling is a visible expression and an audible one too when it is synchronous with speech. Very few studies have documented the perceptual prosodic cues associated with perceived smiling speech. The first aim of this paper is to study the perception of smiled-speech according to the listeners’ gender. The reaction time and the intensity of the perceived smiled-speech were also investigated. The second aim is to identify a combination of prosodic parameters which would allow a phonetic description of smiled-speech. 140 utterances were extracted from spontaneous data (Montréal 1995 corpus) and used as stimuli for a perception test administered to 40 Québec French listeners (20 men, 20 women). Results show that men and women do not perceived smiled-speech in the same way, and women are quicker than men to make their decisions. Moreover, reaction times are faster for utterances perceived as smiling with a high degree of intensity, for both men and women, than those with lower intensity. Perceived prosodic parameters related to pitch height, pitch range, rhythm, and speech rate in relation to smiled-speech and its intensity are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".