An evaluation of noise on LPC-based vowel formant estimates: Implications for sociolinguistic data collection
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
Abstract Current trends in sociophonetic data analysis indicate a shift to entirely automatic measurements of spectral properties using programs like Praat. While such practices are useful for the rapid collection of acoustic data from large corpora, they, by default do not permit human analysts to provide quality control or make hand corrected measurements when needed. Under ideal signal-to-noise conditions, such as in a sound-proof room, this may not be a problem. However, analysis of audio recordings made in acoustically-uncontrolled environments, like many standard sociolinguistic interviews, are arguably susceptible to spurious estimates using automated routines. This paper presents the results of a highly controlled noise-interference experiment designed to examine the effects of different types of noise at varying signal-to-noise levels on automated LPC-based vowel formant measurements made in Praat. Findings indicate that some noises are more detrimental than others, affect some formant frequencies more than others and that louder noises make it inappropriate to conduct an analysis of F1 and F2. Results are discussed and suggestions for better practices in recording sociolinguistic interviews for sociophonetic data collection are presented.
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 | 0.003 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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