MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094847627 · doi:10.1121/1.3385273

A new non-linear regression model for formant trajectories in English monosyllables incorporating dual targets for vowels.

2010· article· en· W2094847627 on OpenAlexaff
Terrance M. Nearey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantVowelMathematicsOffset (computer science)ConsonantExponential functionSpeech recognitionStop consonantAcousticsComputer scienceMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new non-linear regression model is proposed to characterize the formant trajectories of the vocalic portion of English CVC syllables in the data described by Hillenbrand et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 748–763 (2001)]. The modeling framework builds on work of Broad and Clermont [J. Acoust. Soc. Ame. 81, 155–165 (1987)], wherein formant trajectories were modeled via three additive components: (1) a single vowel target, (2) an exponential approach (in time from onset) toward the vowel target from an initial consonant onset value, and (3) an exponential approach (in time from offset) toward the vowel target from a final consonant offset value. The new model extends this to allow for a dual specification (nucleus + offglide) of the vowel targets [T. Nearey and P. Assmann, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80, 1297–1308 (1986)]. Initial results suggests that inclusion of a second vowel target provides substantial reduction (about 40%, 23% and 7% respectively for F1, F2, and F3) of error variance on trajectories averaged across 12 speakers. More detailed statistical analyses of variants of the new model are underway and will be reported for both the data described above and that reported on by Assmann et al. [this meeting].

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207