Feature Learning from Spectrograms for Assessment of Personality Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several methods have recently been proposed to analyze speech and automatically infer the personality of the speaker. These methods often rely on prosodic and other hand crafted speech processing features extracted with off-the-shelf toolboxes. To achieve high accuracy, numerous features are typically extracted using complex and highly parameterized algorithms. In this paper, a new method based on feature learning and spectrogram analysis is proposed to simplify the feature extraction process while maintaining a high level of accuracy. The proposed method learns a dictionary of discriminant features from patches extracted in the spectrogram representations of training speech segments. Each speech segment is then encoded using the dictionary, and the resulting feature set is used to perform classification of personality traits. Experiments indicate that the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art results with an important reduction in complexity when compared to the most recent reference methods. The number of features, and difficulties linked to the feature extraction process are greatly reduced as only one type of descriptors is used, for which the 7 parameters can be tuned automatically. In contrast, the simplest reference method uses 4 types of descriptors to which 6 functionals are applied, resulting in over 20 parameters to be tuned.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".