MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2993863557

Speech privacy criteria for closed rooms in terms of speech privacy class (SPC) values

2011· article· en· W2993863557 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
John S. Bradley, Bradford N. Gover

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersPublic Works and Government Services Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionVoice activity detectionIntelligibility (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Noise (video)Speech processingArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a new set of speech privacy criteria in terms of Speech Privacy Class (SPC) values. SPC values can be used to specify the required speech privacy for new construction or to assess the speech privacy of existing closed rooms. The ASTM E2638 measurement standard defines SPC as the sum of the measured average noise level at the position of a potential eavesdropper outside the room, and the measured average level difference between a source room average and the transmitted levels at the same location. With a given combination of level difference and ambient noise level, the likelihood of transmitted speech being audible or intelligible can be related to the probability of higher speech levels occurring in themeeting room, based on the statistics of speech levels from a large number of meetings. For a particular SPC, there is a speech level for which transmitted speech would be at the threshold of intelligibility. The probability of higher speech levels occurring is the probability of a speech privacy lapse at that SPC value. A set of increasing SPC values corresponding to increasing speech privacy are proposed and for each SPC value, one can give the probability of transmitted speech being either audible or intelligible. This makes it possible to accurately specify speech privacy criteria for meeting rooms and offices, varying from conditions of quite minimal to extremely high speech privacy, with an associated risk of a speech privacy lapse which is acceptable for each situation.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→