Formal perceptual evaluation of voice quality in the United Kingdom
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
This document is a position statement on the formal perceptual evaluation of voice quality in the United Kingdom (UK). It addresses a number of clinical issues pertaining to the complexity of voice quality analysis. There is also a brief description of the three formal perceptual protocols most commonly used in the UK: The Vocal Profile Analysis (VPA), GRBAS and The Buffalo III Voice Profile. Potential clinical problems with perceptual voice quality evaluation are highlighted. Problems associated with the lack of defined terminology, limitless variety of voice quality, general lack of reliability data and difficulties in determining specificity and sensitivity are discussed. A practical guide for selecting an evaluation scheme is described. The conclusion is that the GRBAS scheme should be recommended as the absolute minimum standard for practising UK voice clinicians. However, there is a clear need to develop a more satisfactory perceptual rating scheme that is clinically realistic, theoretically sound, internationally acceptable and has proven reliability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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