MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070838352 · doi:10.1121/1.4754920

The implementation of pyschoacoustical signal parameters in the wavelet domain

2012· article· en· W2070838352 on OpenAlexaff
Matt Borland, Stephen Birkett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletSIGNAL (programming language)PsychoacousticsComputer scienceFourier transformWavelet transformHarmonic wavelet transformAcousticsFrequency domainSecond-generation wavelet transformRepresentation (politics)Fourier analysisSpeech recognitionAudio signalMathematicsDiscrete wavelet transformArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introducing Wavelet techniques into the psychoacoustical analysis of sound signals provides a powerful alternative to standard Fourier methods. In this paper the reformulation of existing psychoacoustical signal parameters using wavelet methods will be explored. A major motivation for this work is that traditional psychoacoustical signal analysis relies heavily on the Fourier transform to provide a frequency content representation of a time signal, but this frequency domain representation is not always accurate; especially for sounds with impactive components. These impactive events can have a more significant contribution to the calculation of psychoacoustical signal parameters by reformulating existing psychoacoustic parameters in the Wavelet domain that are dependent on the Fourier transform. To provide concrete examples of the results simulated “plucked string” sounds are analyzed with analogous Fourier and Wavelet domain signal parameters to demonstrate the difference in performance achieved using Wavelet methods for sounds which have impactive components.

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)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207