MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013135134 · doi:10.1109/jproc.2013.2251592

Acoustic Analysis for Automatic Speech Recognition

2013· article· en· W2013135134 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the IEEE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionSpeech processingRobustness (evolution)Voice activity detection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a pattern recognition application, automatic speech recognition (ASR) requires the extraction of useful features from its input signal, speech. To help determine relevance, human speech production and acoustic aspects of speech perception are reviewed, to identify acoustic elements likely to be most important for ASR. Common methods of estimating useful aspects of speech spectral envelopes are reviewed, from the point of view of efficiency and reliability in mismatched conditions. Because many speech inputs for ASR have noise and channel degradations, ways to improve robustness in speech parameterization are analyzed. While the main focus in ASR is to obtain spectral envelope measures, human speech communication efficiently exploits the manipulation of one's vocal-cord vibration rate [fundamental frequency (F0)], and so F0 extraction and its integration into ASR are also reviewed. For the acoustic analysis reviewed here for ASR, this work presents modern methods as well as future perspectives on important aspects of speech information processing.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.236
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