MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085249604 · doi:10.1117/12.883533

C-BET evaluation of voice biometrics

2011· article· en· W2085249604 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dmitry O. Gorodnichy, Michael Thieme, David Bissessar, Jessica Chung, Elan Dubrofsky, Jonathon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBiometric Identification and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsBiometricsComputer scienceRanking (information retrieval)Artificial intelligenceData miningSpeech recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C-BET is the Comprehensive Biometrics Evaluation Toolkit developed by CBSA in order to analyze the suitability of biometric systems for fully-automated border/access control applications. Following the multiorder score analysis and the threshold-validated analysis defined within the C-BET framework, the paper presents the results of the C-BET evaluation of a commercial voice biometric product. In addition to error tradeoff and ranking curves traditionally reported elsewhere, the paper presents the results on the newly introduced performance metrics: threshold-validated recognition ranking and non-confident decisions due to multiple threshold-validated scores. The results are obtained on over a million voice audio clip comparisons. Good biometric evaluation practices offered within C-BET framework are presented.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicBiometric Identification and SecurityFrench-language works237,207