Modeling the effects of a posterior glottal opening on vocal fold dynamics with implications for vocal hyperfunction
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
Despite the frequent observation of a persistent opening in the posterior cartilaginous glottis in normal and pathological phonation, its influence on the self-sustained oscillations of the vocal folds is not well understood. The effects of a posterior gap on the vocal fold tissue dynamics and resulting acoustics were numerically investigated using a specially designed flow solver and a reduced-order model of human phonation. The inclusion of posterior gap areas of 0.03-0.1 cm(2) reduced the energy transfer from the fluid to the vocal folds by more than 42%-80% and the radiated sound pressure level by 6-14 dB, respectively. The model was used to simulate vocal hyperfucntion, i.e., patterns of vocal misuse/abuse associated with many of the most common voice disorders. In this first approximation, vocal hyperfunction was modeled by introducing a compensatory increase in lung air pressure to regain the vocal loudness level that was produced prior to introducing a large glottal gap. This resulted in a significant increase in maximum flow declination rate and amplitude of unsteady flow, thereby mimicking clinical studies. The amplitude of unsteady flow was found to be linearly correlated with collision forces, thus being an indicative measure of vocal hyperfunction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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