Evaluating generalised additive mixed modelling strategies for dynamic speech analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalised additive mixed models (GAMMs) are increasingly popular in dynamic speech analysis, where the focus is on measurements with temporal or spatial structure such as formant, pitch or tongue contours. GAMMs provide a range of tools for dealing with the non-linear contour shapes and complex hierarchical organisation characteristic of such data sets. This, however, means that analysts are faced with non-trivial choices, many of which have a serious impact on the statistical validity of their analyses. This paper presents type I and type II error simulations to help researchers make informed decisions about modelling strategies when using GAMMs to analyse phonetic data. The simulations are based on two real data sets containing F2 and pitch contours, and a simulated data set modelled after the F2 data. They reflect typical scenarios in dynamic speech analysis. The main emphasis is on (i) dealing with dependencies within contours and higher-level units using random structures and other tools, and (ii) strategies for significance testing using GAMMs. The paper concludes with a small set of recommendations for fitting GAMMs, and provides advice on diagnosing issues and tailoring GAMMs to specific data sets. It is also accompanied by a GitHub repository including a tutorial on running type I error simulations for existing data sets: https://github.com/soskuthy/gamm_strategies.
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 | 0.086 | 0.221 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".