Numerical Investigations of Pathological Phonation Resulting From a Unilateral Sessile Polyp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The voice, generated via the modulation of airflow by the vocal folds in the larynx, is studied computationally to improve treatment of voice disorders.A model of a vocal fold with a polyp is developed, and implemented in-house.Structural vibration of the model is computed in the time and frequency domain with the finite element method.Aerodynamic loading is computed with the Bernoulli equation, which is corrected for viscous and unsteady effects.A polyp's mass is the most influential parameter, followed by stiffness and position.Natural frequencies are decreased by increasing mass, and increased by increasing stiffness.Damping due to the polyp's mass is mitigated near fixed walls.Polyp mass distribution is most influential on vibration when spread into the glottis.Pitch-intensity dependence decreases with increasing polyp mass.The polyp disrupts vibration of the vocal fold pair by decreasing the cross-sectional area of the flow, and vibrating out of phase.My first steps into the world of scholarly research would not have been so rewarding if it were not for the immense support offered to me by my supervisors, Professor Joana Rocha and Professor Edgar Matida.Without their dependable technical and financial support, this work would not have been possible.Most importantly, they fostered an open environment where there is no fear of asking a stupid question.To you both, I am exceedingly grateful.Despite my fondness for numerical computing, I've learned the phrase, "Too much of anything can kill you," to ring true.My thanks go out to Colin, Zahra, Sarah, and Jared for the numerous distracting, yet stimulating, coffee breaks which they have accompanied me on.Their willingness to allow me to bounce ideas off of them have led to the refinement of many aspects of this thesis.I would not be in a position to pursue graduate studies without the backing of my family, who have always enthusiastically encouraged me to pursue my interests, whether academic or not.Thank you for your persistent love, care, and confidence.I would not have been able to overcome my confusion over turbulence, nor inner turbulence, without your inspiration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".