Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information normally associated with pitch, such as intonation, can still be conveyed in whispered speech despite the absence of voicing. For example, it is possible to whisper the question ‘‘You are going today?’’ without any syntactic information to distinguish this sentence from a simple declarative. It has been shown that pitch change in whispered speech is correlated with the simultaneous raising or lowering of several formants [e.g., M. Kiefte, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 2546 (2004)]. However, spectral peak frequencies associated with formants have been identified as important correlates to vowel identity. Spectral peak frequencies may serve two roles in the perception of whispered speech: to indicate both vowel identity and intended pitch. Data will be presented to examine the relative importance of several acoustic properties including spectral peak frequencies and spectral shape parameters in both the production and perception of whispered vowels. Speakers were asked to phonate and whisper vowels at three different pitches across a range of roughly a musical fifth. It will be shown that relative spectral change is preserved within vowels across intended pitches in whispered speech. In addition, several models of vowel identification by listeners will be presented. [Work supported by SSHRC.]
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".