MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217467022

Voice Assistant: Magical Speech Recognition Tool

2019· article· en· W3217467022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sapna Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Robotics and Automation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVoice command deviceAction (physics)Human–computer interactionMultimediaArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognition
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There was always a need of someone who can assist you in any scenario and make you work and make life easy to move as per your direction and need answer to the one and foremost question is Voice Assistant. In this digital era, a kind of digital assistant that uses “Voice Recognition”, “Natural Language” and “Speech Synthesis” in order to provide aids to the users through types of smart applications such as smart phones or voice recognition applications is known as Voice Assistant. Voice Assistant is mainly based on today’s magical world “Artificial Intelligence”, or we can say as another world “Machine Learning” build on Cognitive Computing Technologies. Various and different types and levels of “Voice Assistant” are available with various functionalities and features, which have targeted various levels of users. Cognitive technology is typically the mental action in order to learn and acquire through various modes of thinking procedures like thoughts, experience and different types of senses. It is the methodology which tells and locates how a computer can interact with human beings. It involves various inspired architecture and also comes with a concept of “Neuroscience”. Cite this Article: Sapna Sharma. Voice Assistant: Magical Speech Recognition Tool. International Journal of Robotics and Automation. 2019; 5(2): 30–36p.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Robotics and AutomationSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207