MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comparative Normative Study Between Multidimensional Voice Program, Praat, and TF32

2019· article· en· W2951168122 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Richardson, Deborah Matheron, Vincent Martel‐Sauvageau, Irena Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeech recognitionComputer scienceNormativeQuality (philosophy)PhonationWaveformPsychologyAudiologyMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The instrumental assessment of voice quality is influenced by several factors, including the type of recording equipment used to capture the acoustic signal and the algorithm used by the acoustic analysis software program (AASP) to analyze the corresponding waveform. In this study, various acoustic measures were compared across 3 AASPs commonly used in research, education, and clinical practice: Multidimensional Voice Program (MDVP) by Computerized Speech Lab, Praat, and TF32.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest GroupsSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207