MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring the acceptable word error rate of machine-generated webcast transcripts

2006· article· en· W34011602 on OpenAlexaff
Cosmin Munteanu, Gerald Penn, Ron Baecker, Elaine G. Toms, David A. James

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWebcastComputer scienceBroadcasting (networking)Word (group theory)MetadataThe InternetSpeech recognitionInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased availability of broadband connections has recently led to an increase in the use of Internet broadcasting (webcasting). Most webcasts are archived and accessed numerous times retrospectively. One of the hurdles users face when browsing and skimming through archives is the lack of text transcripts of the audio channel of the webcast archive. In this paper, we proposed a procedure for prototyping an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) system that generates realistic transcripts of any desired Word Error Rate (WER), thus overcoming the drawbacks of both prototypebased and Wizard of Oz simulations. We used such a system in a study where human subjects perform question-answering tasks using archives of webcast lectures, and showed that their performance and perception of transcript quality is linearly affected by WER, and that transcripts of WER equal or less than 25 % would be acceptable for use in webcast archives.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207