MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053772744 · doi:10.1145/1132736.1132765

Qui parle?

2006· article· fr· W2053772744 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie Noël, Sarah Dumoulin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRecallTask (project management)AvatarSpeech recognitionSpeaker recognitionSpeaker diarisationRepresentation (politics)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionPsychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a study comparing three types of cues to signal the speaker inside a virtual environment: a speech balloon above the speaker's avatar; the speaker's name on-screen; and a representation of the speaker inside a 2D map. People are able to quickly and correctly identify the speaker, no matter which cue is used. However, people recall the dialogue least when the cue is the speaker's name. This low recall might be explained by the interference of a semantic cue on a semantic task.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.006

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207