Same noses, different nasalance scores: Data from normal subjects and cleft palate speakers for three systems for nasalance analysis
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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