Response to “Comments on ‘A theoretical model of the pressure distributions arising from asymmetric intraglottal flows applied to a two-mass model of the vocal folds’” [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 389–403 (2011)]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hirschberg [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 9-12 (2013)] presents a commentary and criticisms of the viscous flow model presented by Erath et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 389-403 (2011)] that solves for the asymmetric pressure loading on the vocal fold walls. This pressure loading arises from asymmetric flow attachment to one vocal fold wall when the glottal channel forms a divergent configuration. Hirschberg proposes an alternative model for the asymmetric loading based upon inviscid flow curvature at the glottal inlet. In this manuscript further evidence is provided in support of the model of Erath et al. and the underlying assumptions, and demonstrates that the primary criticisms presented by Hirschberg are unwarranted. The model presented by Hirschberg is compared with the model from the original paper by Erath et al., and it is shown that each model describes different and complementary aspects of divergent glottal flows.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".