Dialect Identification in Telugu Language Speech Utterance Using Modified Features with Deep Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dialect Identification is the process of identifies the dialects of particular standard language. The Telugu Language is one of the historical and important languages. Like any other language Telugu also contains mainly three dialects Telangana, Costa Andhra and Rayalaseema. The research work in dialect identification is very less compare to Language identification because of dearth of database. In any dialects identification system, the database and feature engineering play vital roles because of most the words are similar in pronunciation and also most of the researchers apply statistical approaches like Hidden Markov Model (HMM), Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), etc. to work on speech processing applications. But in today's world, neural networks play a vital role in all application domains and produce good results. One of the types of the neural networks is Deep Neural Networks (DNN) and it is used to achieve the state of the art performance in several fields such as speech recognition, speaker identification. In this, the Deep Neural Network (DNN) based model Multilayer Perceptron is used to identify the regional dialects of the Telugu Language using enhanced Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC) features. To do this, created a database of the Telugu dialects with the duration of 5h and 45m collected from different speakers in different environments. The results produced by DNN model compared with HMM and GMM model and it is observed that the DNN model provides good performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".