Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of acoustic distance figures into many aspects of phonetics, including phonological neighborhoods. A measurement of word-level acoustic distance useful for cognitive modeling must account for two listener characteristics: sensitivity to acoustic differences and sensitivity to duration discrepancies between words. The present work used dynamic time warping to measure how acoustic distance accumulates between words over time. The results of a distance rating task with synthesized vowels were used as a basis for selecting a mathematical function that best matched listener sensitivities. Additionally, the results of a reminder task with synthesized vowels were used to determine a just noticeable difference threshold for vowel duration. The results suggested that a distance function based on the 4.5-norm using a 30 ms radius for dynamic time warping best matched human behavior. A third analysis used these dynamic time warping configurations to model reaction times in an auditory lexical decision task and found that Euclidean distance and no temporal constraints on dynamic time warping best matched human behavior. These results are discussed in relation to spoken word recognition models, including how to assess the acoustic match between the speech signal and a word in the lexicon.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".