Effect of listener training on perceptual judgement of hypernasality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable perceptual judgement is important for documenting the severity of hypernasality, but high reliability can be difficult to obtain. This study investigated the effect of practice and feedback on intra-judge and inter-judge reliability of hypernasality judgements. The judges were 36 speech-language therapy students, who were randomly assigned to three groups for training: (1) Exposure (simple exposure to hypernasal speech samples), (2) Practice-only (practice with hypernasality judgements without feedback), and (3) Practice-Feedback (practice with hypernasality judgements with feedback). After training, the judges rated hypernasality in non-nasal sentences produced by 20 speakers with hypernasality and two normal speakers, using direct magnitude estimation. Both practice groups showed fair-to-good inter-judge reliability for rating the female samples: had more listeners who showed significant intra-judge reliability, and had significantly larger range of hypernasality ratings than the exposure group. To conclude, practice (with or without feedback) is useful for improving the reliability of hypernasality ratings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it