Hearing impaired speech in noisy classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Noisy classrooms have been shown to induce among students patterns of interaction similar to those used by hearing impaired people [W. H. McKellin et al., GURT (2003)]. In this research, the speech of children in a noisy classroom setting was investigated to determine if noisy classrooms have an effect on students’ speech. Audio recordings were made of the speech of students during group work in their regular classrooms (grades 1–7), and of the speech of the same students in a sound booth. Noise level readings in the classrooms were also recorded. Each student’s noisy and quiet environment speech samples were acoustically analyzed for prosodic and segmental properties (f0, pitch range, pitch variation, phoneme duration, vowel formants), and compared. The analysis showed that the students’ speech in the noisy classrooms had characteristics of the speech of hearing-impaired persons [e.g., R. O’Halpin, Clin. Ling. and Phon. 15, 529–550 (2001)]. Some educational implications of our findings were identified. [Work supported by the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, University of British Columbia.]
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".