Vocal fold dynamics in a synthetic self-oscillating model: Contact pressure and dissipated-energy dose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energy dissipated during vocal fold (VF) contact is a predictor of phonotrauma. Difficulty measuring contact pressure has forced prior energy dissipation estimates to rely upon generalized approximations of the contact dynamics. To address this shortcoming, contact pressure was measured in a self-oscillating synthetic VF model with high spatiotemporal resolution using a hemilaryngeal configuration. The approach yields a temporal resolution of less than 0.26 ms and a spatial resolution of 0.254 mm in the inferior-superior direction. The average contact pressure was found to be 32% of the peak contact pressure, 60% higher than the ratio estimated in prior studies. It was found that 52% of the total power was dissipated due to collision. The power dissipated during contact was an order of magnitude higher than the power dissipated due to internal friction during the non-contact phase of oscillation. Both the contact pressure magnitude and dissipated power were found to be maximums at the mid anterior-posterior position, supporting the idea that collision is responsible for the formation of benign lesions, which normally appear at the middle third of the VF.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".