MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060851078 · doi:10.1121/1.2839285

The intelligibility of speech in elementary school classrooms

2008· article· en· W2060851078 on OpenAlexaff
John S. Bradley, Hiroshi Satō

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntelligibility (philosophy)AcousticsAudiologyMathematicsPsychologyMathematics educationPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the second of two papers describing the results of acoustical measurements and speech intelligibility tests in elementary school classrooms. The intelligibility tests were performed in 41 classrooms in 12 different schools evenly divided among grades 1, 3, and 6 students (nominally 6, 8, and 11 year olds). Speech intelligibility tests were carried out on classes of students seated at their own desks in their regular classrooms. Mean intelligibility scores were significantly related to signal-to-noise ratios and to the grade of the students. While the results are different than those from some previous laboratory studies that included less realistic conditions, they agree with previous in-classroom experiments. The results indicate that +15 dB signal-to-noise ratio is not adequate for the youngest children. By combining the speech intelligibility test results with measurements of speech and noise levels during actual teaching situations, estimates of the fraction of students experiencing near-ideal acoustical conditions were made. The results are used as a basis for estimating ideal acoustical criteria for elementary school classrooms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations238
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207