MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153900043 · doi:10.1109/icassp.1979.1170773

Automatic discrimination of fricative consonants based on human audition

2005· article· en· W2153900043 on OpenAlexaff
Barry P. Kimberley, C. L. Searle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminatorSpeech recognitionOctave (electronics)Computer scienceBand-pass filterSpectral analysisSet (abstract data type)Auditory systemMathematicsArtificial intelligenceAcousticsAudiologyDetectorPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A phoneme discriminator, designed to model the human auditory system, has been tested in a fricative discrimination task. Nineteen speakers, ten male and nine female, generated a data set comprising the nine isolated fricative consonants, each followed by three different vowels. The system was first trained on the utterances of nine of the voices and achieved 89% correct classification of the nine fricatives. Then this classification system was applied to an "unknown" set of utterances of the remaining ten voices. This prediction experiment yielded 74% accuracy. The system design, based on auditory processing, involves a spectral analysis by means of a bank of 1/3- octave bandpass filters. Acoustic features derived from this spectral analysis include voice onset time, time averaged spectra, and gross spectral energy distributions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207