MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054285880 · doi:10.1121/1.3384214

Setting speech privacy criteria for closed rooms in terms of speech privacy class values.

2010· article· en· W2054285880 on OpenAlexaff
John S. Bradley, Bradford N. Gover

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntelligibility (philosophy)Speech recognitionVoice activity detectionSet (abstract data type)Noise (video)Value (mathematics)Class (philosophy)AcousticsSpeech processingArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new ASTM E2638 standard defines speech privacy class (SPC) as the sum of the measured average noise level at the position of a potential eavesdropper outside the room and the measured level difference between a source room average and the transmitted levels at the same potential eavesdropper location. For a given situation, the likelihood of transmitted speech being audible or intelligible can be related to the probability of higher-speech levels occurring in the meeting room. Increasing speech privacy criteria can be defined in terms of increasing SPC values. For a particular meeting room speech level, there is an SPC value for which transmitted speech would be below the threshold of intelligibility or even below the threshold of audibility. One can therefore create a set of increasing SPC values corresponding to increasing speech privacy and for each SPC value, one can give the probability of transmitted speech being either audible or intelligible. This paper describes a new procedure that makes it possible to specify degrees of speech privacy for meeting rooms and offices in terms of the expected risk of a privacy lapse and varying from quite minimal to extremely high-speech privacy.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207