MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285242026 · doi:10.51542/ijscia.v3i3.25

ArmSpeech: Armenian Spoken Language Corpus

2022· article· en· W4285242026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Varuzhan H. Baghdasaryan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Of Scientific Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArmenianStress (linguistics)The RepublicDiasporaLinguisticsSpeech corpusSpoken languageIdentification (biology)HistoryComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceSpeech synthesisLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Armenian language is an independent branch of the Indo-European language family and the official language of the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh. According to various reliable sources, an average of 3 million people in Armenia and 10-12 million people in the Armenian Diaspora use the Armenian language as their native language. The largest communities outside of Armenia are in the United States of America, Canada, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the French Republic, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Lebanese Republic. This paper presents the ArmSpeech speech corpus. ArmSpeech is a collection of annotated Armenian speech intended for natural language processing (NLP) technologies research and development. ArmSpeech is designed for speech-to-text and text-to-speech purposes but can be used in other domains also (e.g. language identification). Corpus contains 6206 high-quality audio samples: 11 hours 46 minutes and 26 seconds (11.77 hours) of annotated native Armenian speech of multiple speakers of any age, gender and accent. According to the research results, this is the most extensive Armenian speech corpus in the public domain for speech recognition, speech synthesis and spoken language identification systems.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Of Scientific AdvancesSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207