Acoustic Discrimination of Pathological Voice
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the ability of acoustic measures to discriminate between normal and pathological talkers. Two groups of measures were compared: (a) those extracted from sustained vowels and (b) those based on continuous speech samples. Nine acoustic measures, which include fundamental frequency and amplitude perturbation measures, long term average spectral measures, and glottal noise measures were extracted from both sustained vowel and continuous speech samples. Our experiments were performed on a published database of 53 normal talkers and 175 talkers with a pathological voice. The classification performance of the nine acoustic measures was quantified using linear discriminant analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. When individual measures were considered in isolation, classification was more accurate for measures extracted from sustained vowels than for those based on continuous speech samples. Classification accuracy improved when combinations of acoustic parameters were considered. For such combinations of measures, classification results were comparable for measures extracted from continuous speech samples and for those based on sustained vowels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it