MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

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

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
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

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207