Bibliographic record
Abstract
A previous investigation comparing astronaut speech during and after the Apollo 11 mission reported a significant increase across all vowel formants during microgravity exposure. This result was interpreted as indicating that the tongue is lowered in microgravity conditions [Yu & Hansen, 2017, JASA, 141(3), 1605-1614] . However, we note that the microgravity condition speech data used in this analysis were routed through telephone channels while the earth condition data were not. As telephone speech is characterized by a marked increase to formants [Nolan, 2002. Forensic Ling. 9(1), 74-82], it is unclear whether any observed effect was due to microgravity or telephone bandwidths. Using higher quality audio from the STS-129 and 135 missions and linear mixed effects models, we compared the first vowel formant (F1) of two astronauts immediately before and during exposure to microgravity during space travel. We found no significant interaction of condition in our models, suggesting microgravity does not have a substantial effect on tongue height. We conclude that previous observations of microgravity-induced tongue lowering may actually be a product of telephone bandwidth changes. Future investigations of astronaut speech should take care to ensure audio bandwidth is comparable across conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".