MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086791809 · doi:10.4018/jcini.2008070101

Language Independent Recognition of Human Emotion using Artificial Neural Networks

2008· article· en· W2086791809 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Waqas Bhatti, Yongjin Wang, Ling Guan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceCurse of dimensionalityModular designFeature selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Consistency (knowledge bases)Feature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Identification (biology)Machine learningNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a language-independent emotion recognition system for the identification of human affective state in the speech signal. A group of potential features are first identified and extracted to represent the characteristics of different emotions. To reduce the dimensionality of the feature space, whilst increasing the discriminatory power of the features, we introduce a systematic feature selection approach which involves the application of sequential forward selection (SFS) with a general regression neural network (GRNN) in conjunction with a consistency-based selection method. The selected parameters are employed as an input to the modular neural network, consisting of sub-networks, where each sub-network specializes in a particular emotion class. Comparing with the standard neural network, this modular architecture allows decomposition of a complex classification problem into small subtasks such that the network may be tuned based on the characteristics of individual emotion. The performance of the proposed system is evaluated for various subjects, speaking different languages.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural IntelligenceSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207