MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121226132 · doi:10.1109/imtc.2005.1604213

Speech Quality Evaluation: A New Application of Digital Watermarking

2006· article· en· W2121226132 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

Venue2005 IEEE Instrumentationand Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPESQComputer scienceMean opinion scoreQuality (philosophy)Speech recognitionDigital watermarkingSound qualitySpeech codingPSQMThe InternetVoice over IPActive listeningLinear predictive codingArtificial intelligenceSpeech enhancement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speech quality evaluation is a very important research topic. In addition, the real time property of packet-switched network (e.g., the Internet) applications requires a fast and effective audio quality evaluation method. Mean Opinion Score (MOS) is reliable, but the listening test is very expensive, time-consuming, and sometimes impractical. The existing objective quality assessment methods require either original speech or a complicated computation model, which makes some applications of quality evaluation impossible. We propose to use digital audio watermarking to evaluate the quality of speech. The experimental results show that the method yields accurate quality scores that are very close to the results of PESQ.

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 score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.244 · 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