Same noses, different nasalance scores: Data from normal subjects and cleft palate speakers for three systems for nasalance analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nasalance scores from the Nasometer, the NasalView and the OroNasal System were compared. The data was collected from 50 normal participants and 19 hypernasal patients with cleft palate. The Nasometer had the lowest nasalance scores for the non-nasal Zoo Passage and that the OroNasal System had the lowest nasalance scores for the Nasal Sentences. The nasalance distance was largest for the Nasometer and smallest for the OroNasal System. When the calculation was based on nasalance magnitudes, results for sensitivity ranged from 57.9% to 81.8% and results for specificity ranged from 62.0% to 76.0%. When the calculation was based on nasalance distances, results for sensitivity ranged from 84.2% to 100.0% and results for specificity ranged from 82.0% to 100.0%. Results suggest that nasalance scores from the three systems are not interchangeable. Diagnostic efficacy improved when the calculations were based on nasalance distances rather than magnitudes, but further research is warranted to corroborate these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".