MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283646131 · doi:10.3390/app12136494

Estimation of the Underlying F0 Range of a Speaker from the Spectral Features of a Brief Speech Input

2022· article· en· W4283646131 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Zhang, Yanlu Xie, Binghuai Lin, Liyuan Wang, Jinsong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersBeijing Language and Culture University
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Speech recognitionComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Fundamental frequencyAcousticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From a very brief speech, human listeners can estimate the pitch range of the speaker and normalize pitch perception. Spectral features which inherently involve both articulatory and phonatory characteristics were speculated to play roles in this process, but few were reported to directly correlate with speaker’s F0 range. To mimic this human auditory capability and validate the speculation, in a preliminary study we proposed an LSTM-based method to estimate speaker’s F0 range from a 300 ms-long speech input, which turned out to outperform the conventional method. By two more experiments, this study further improved the method and verified its validity in estimating the speaker-specific underlying F0 range. After incorporating a novel measurement of F0 range and a multi-task training approach, Experiment 1 showed that the refined model gave more accurate estimates than the initial model. Based on a Japanese-Chinese bilingual parallel speech corpus, Experiment 2 found that the F0 ranges estimated with the model from the Chinese speech and the model from the Japanese speech produced by the same set of speakers had no significant difference, whereas the conventional method showed significant difference. The results indicate that the proposed spectrum-based method captures the speaker-specific underlying F0 range which is independent of the linguistic content.

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207