MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022164734 · doi:10.1121/1.4778214

Glottal-wave and vocal-tract-area-function estimations from vowel sounds based on realistic assumptions and models

2005· article· en· W2022164734 on OpenAlexaff
Huiqun Deng, Rabab Ward, M.P. Beddoes, Murray Hodgson, Bryan Gick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocal tractVowelAcousticsGlottisMathematicsInverse filterSpeech recognitionInverseComputer sciencePhysicsMedicineLarynxAnatomyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating glottal waves by inverse filtering vowel sounds and deriving vocal-tract area functions (VTAFs) from vocal-tract filter (VTF) estimates require that VTF models be realistic and that VTF estimates contain no effects of open glottises and glottal waves. In this study, VTFs are modeled to have lip reflection coefficients with low-pass frequency responses; to minimize the effects of open glottises and glottal waves on the estimates, VTFs are estimated from sustained vowel sounds over closed glottal phases, assuming that the glottal waves are periodically stationary random processes. Since incomplete glottal closures are common, VTF estimates may contain the effects of glottal loss. To eliminate the effects of glottal loss in the VTF estimates, lip-opening areas must be known. Theoretically, estimates of glottal waves and VTAFs corresponding to large-lip-opening vowel sounds are less affected by the glottal loss than those corresponding to small-lip-opening vowel sounds. The VTAFs and glottal waves estimated from vowel sounds produced by several subjects are presented. The normalized VTAFs estimated from large-lip-opening sounds are similar to that measured from an unknown subjects magnetic resonance image. Over closed glottal phases, the glottal waves are non-zero. They increase during vocal-fold colliding, and decrease or even increase during vocal-fold parting.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207