MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2769393692 · doi:10.1121/1.5014860

Vowel intelligibility in clear speech produced by electrolaryngeal speakers

2017· article· en· W2769393692 on OpenAlexaff
Steven R. Cox, Lawrence J. Raphael, Philip C. Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelIntelligibility (philosophy)ConsonantAudiologyAcousticsPsychologyLinguisticsSpeech recognitionComputer sciencePhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed vowel intelligibility when electrolaryngeal (EL) speakers were instructed to use clear speech (CS). Eighteen consonant-vowel-consonant words containing /i/, /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/ were spoken by 10 laryngectomees in habitual speech (HS) and CS conditions. A total of 4,320 words across both speech conditions were recorded and then transcribed by 12, naïve listeners. Results indicate that vowel intelligibility was 85.4% (range = 77.8% to 90.6%) when EL speakers used HS compared to 82.7% (range = 75.0% to 92.8%) in CS. This finding suggests that CS does not facilitate improved vowel intelligibility for EL speakers. Future research will seek explanations for the lack of a CS benefit by examining the acoustic changes that occur when EL speakers use CS.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→