A theoretical model of the pressure field arising from asymmetric intraglottal flows applied to a two-mass model of the vocal folds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A theoretical flow solution is presented for predicting the pressure distribution along the vocal fold walls arising from asymmetric flow that forms during the closing phases of speech. The resultant wall jet was analyzed using boundary layer methods in a non-inertial reference frame attached to the moving wall. A solution for the near-wall velocity profiles on the flow wall was developed based on a Falkner-Skan similarity solution and it was demonstrated that the pressure distribution along the flow wall is imposed by the velocity in the inviscid core of the wall jet. The method was validated with experimental velocity data from 7.5 times life-size vocal fold models, acquired for varying flow rates and glottal divergence angles. The solution for the asymmetric pressures was incorporated into a widely used two-mass model of vocal fold oscillation with a coupled acoustical model of sound propagation. Asymmetric pressure loading was found to facilitate glottal closure, which yielded only slightly higher values of maximum flow declination rate and radiated sound, and a small decrease in the slope of the spectral tilt. While the impact on symmetrically tensioned vocal folds was small, results indicate the effect becomes more significant for asymmetrically tensioned vocal folds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".