Validation de stimuli prosodiques émotionnels chez les Franco-québécois de 50 à 80 ans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few batteries of prosodic stimuli testing have been validated for Quebec-French people. Such validation is necessary to develop auditory-verbal tasks in this population. The objective of this study was to validate a battery of emotional prosodic stimuli for French-Québec aging subjects. The battery of 195 stimuli, which was elaborated by Maurage et al. (2007), is composed of 195 prosodic stimuli and was administrated to 50 healthy Quebecers aged 50-to-80 years. The percentages of good responses were calculated for each stimulus. For each emotion, Cronbach's alphas were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of the stimuli. Results showed that among the 195 stimuli, 40 were correctly recognized by at least 80 per cent of the subjects. Anger was the emotion that was most correctly identified by the participants, while recognition of disgust was the least recognised. Overall, this study provides data that will guide the selection of prosodic stimuli in evaluating French-Québécois.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".