MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403698472

MATLAB Toolbox for Audiovisual Speech Processing

2007· article· en· W2403698472 on OpenAlexaff
Adriano Vilela Barbosa, Hani Camille Yehia, Eric Vatikiotis‐Bateson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToolboxComputer scienceMATLABSpeech recognitionModalitiesIdentification (biology)GestureArtificial intelligenceProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Audiovisual speech processing has reached a stage of maturity where there are now numerous computational procedures needed to measure and assess multimodal signals. However, as is often the case, the results of these procedures are better known than the procedures themselves. This paper presents a MATLAB toolbox consisting of an extensive collection of tools we have developed over the past 10 years. These tools are not intended to be the final answer for multimodal speech analysis; rather they are presented as an easy-to-use and welldocumented library whose scope is sufficiently broad to be useful to both experts and novices. The toolbox includes procedures for measuring, organizing, modeling, and validating multiple streams of time-varying data, including acoustics, two- and threedimensional motions of the speaker. In addition to physical and derived (from video) marker data, new functions have been implemented that incorporate optical flow techniques based on the OpenCV library. When complete the toolbox will allow us to track human body gestures during speech from video noninvasively and to quantify the correspondences between different performance modalities within and across speakers. Index Terms: audiovisual speech, multimodal speech, face motion, optical flow, system identification, Matlab toolbox.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207