MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015914217 · doi:10.1121/1.4734013

Corrected contact dynamics for the Steinecke and Herzel asymmetric two-mass model of the vocal folds

2012· article· en· W2015914217 on OpenAlexaff
David Sommer, Byron D. Erath, Matías Zañartu, Sean D. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa María
KeywordsVocal foldsDynamics (music)PhysicsAcousticsMathematicsAnatomyBiologyLarynx

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The simplified two-mass model of human vocal folds, proposed by Steinecke and Herzel [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97(3), 1874-1884 (1995)], has seen widespread use throughout the speech community. Herein, an error is corrected in the contact loadings on colliding vocal folds with asymmetric tissue properties, as arises clinically in cases of unilateral paralysis. A revised contact model is proposed that remediates the erroneous asymmetric contact forces. The vibration regime map presented in Steinecke and Herzel illustrating the dynamical behavior of the system is revised using the corrected collision model.

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)0.001
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 score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207