MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047497400 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2010.5495037

Approaches to automatic lexicon learning with limited training examples

2010· article· en· W2047497400 on OpenAlexaff
Nagendra Kumar Goel, Samuel Thomas, Mohit Agarwal, Pinar Akyazi, Lukáš Burget, Kai Feng, Arnab Ghoshal, Ondřej Glembek, Martin Karafiát, Daniel Povey, Ariya Rastrow, Richard C. Rose, Petr Schwarz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexiconComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preparation of a lexicon for speech recognition systems can be a significant effort in languages where the written form is not exactly phonetic. On the other hand, in languages where the written form is quite phonetic, some common words are often mispronounced. In this paper, we use a combination of lexicon learning techniques to explore whether a lexicon can be learned when only a small lexicon is available for boot-strapping. We discover that for a phonetic language such as Spanish, it is possible to do that better than what is possible from generic rules or hand-crafted pronunciations. For a more complex language such as English, we find that it is still possible but with some loss of accuracy.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207