MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103636088 · doi:10.1109/lsp.2003.813679

Speech probability distribution

2003· article· en· W2103636088 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Signal Processing Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecorrelationGeneralized gamma distributionDistribution (mathematics)Marginal distributionMathematicsGeneralized integer gamma distributionSpeech processingSpeech recognitionProbability distributionMultivariate statisticsGaussianGamma distributionMultivariate normal distributionJoint probability distributionDiscrete cosine transformComputer scienceRandom variableStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is demonstrated that the distribution of speech samples is well described by Laplacian distribution (LD). The widely known speech distributions, i.e., LD, Gaussian distribution (GD), generalized GD, and gamma distribution, are tested as four hypotheses, and it is proved that speech samples during voice activity intervals are Laplacian random variables. A decorrelation transformation is then applied to speech samples to approximate their multivariate distribution. To do this, speech is decomposed using an adaptive Karhunen-Loeve transform or a discrete cosine transform. Then, the distributions of speech components in decorrelated domains are investigated. Experimental evaluations prove that the statistics of speech signals are like a multivariate LD. All marginal distributions of speech are accurately described by LD in decorrelated domains. While the energies of speech components are time-varying, their distribution shape remains Laplacian.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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