Modeling the effects of a posterior glottal opening on vocal fold dynamics with implications for vocal hyperfunction
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".