Free resources for forced phonetic alignment in Brazilian Portuguese based on Kaldi toolkit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phonetic analysis of speech, in general, requires the alignment of audio samples to its phonetic transcription. This could be done manually for a couple of files, but as the corpus grows large, it becomes infeasibly time-consuming. This paper describes the evolution process toward creating free resources for phonetic alignment in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) using Kaldi, a toolkit that achieves state of the art for open-source speech recognition, within a toolkit we call UFPAlign. The contributions of this work are then twofold: developing resources to perform forced alignment in BP, including the release of scripts to train acoustic models via Kaldi, as well as the resources themselves under open licenses; and bringing forth a comparison to other two phonetic aligners that provide resources for BP, namely EasyAlign and Montreal Forced Aligner (MFA), the latter being also Kaldi-based. Evaluation took place in terms of phone boundary and intersection over union metrics over a dataset of 385 hand-aligned utterances, and results show that Kaldi-based aligners perform better overall, and that UFPAlign models are more accurate than MFA’s. Furthermore, complex deep-learning-based approaches still do not improve performance compared to simpler models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.026 |
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".