Emotion recognition based on the energy distribution of plosive syllables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><span lang="EN-US">We usually encounter two problems during speech emotion recognition (SER): expression and perception problems, which vary considerably between speakers, languages, and sentence pronunciation. In fact, finding an optimal system that characterizes the emotions overcoming all these differences is a promising prospect. In this perspective, we considered two emotional databases: Moroccan Arabic dialect emotional database (MADED), and Ryerson audio-visual database on emotional speech and song (RAVDESS) which present notable differences in terms of type (natural/acted), and language (Arabic/English). We proposed a detection process based on 27 acoustic features extracted from consonant-vowel (CV) syllabic units: </span><em><span lang="EN-US">\ba, \du, \ki, \ta</span></em><span lang="EN-US"> common to both databases. We tested two classification strategies: multiclass (all emotions combined: joy, sadness, neutral, anger) and binary (neutral vs. others, positive emotions (joy) vs. negative emotions (sadness, anger), sadness vs. anger). These strategies were tested three times: i) on MADED, ii) on RAVDESS, iii) on MADED and RAVDESS. The proposed method gave better recognition accuracy in the case of binary classification. The rates reach an average of 78% for the multi-class classification, 100% for neutral vs. other cases, 100% for the negative emotions (i.e. anger vs. sadness), and 96% for the positive vs. negative emotions.</span></p>
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 | 0.000 | 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".