MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040293817 · doi:10.1121/1.4809114

Production and perception of whispered vowels

2005· article· en· W2040293817 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Kiefte

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantVowelAcousticsIntonation (linguistics)SentencePerceptionSpeech recognitionMathematicsIdentity (music)Range (aeronautics)Computer scienceLinguisticsPhysicsPsychologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207