MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MFCCs and TEO-MFCCs for Stress Detection on Women Gender through Deep Learning Analysis

2023· article· en· W4386764925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nur Aishah Zainal, Ani Liza Asnawi, Ahmad Zamani Jusoh, Siti Noorjannah Ibrahim, Huda Adibah Mohd Ramli, Nor Fadhillah Mohamed Azmin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Higher Education
KeywordsComputer scienceStress (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Men and women describe differing physical and emotional responses to stress; women reported experiencing it more than men with 11.7% higher. This issue has been affecting women in different ways than men due to biological and social factors (e.g., differences in hormone processes between both genders and dual responsibilities in the workplace as well as at home). This crucial issue raises many concerns about women’s mental health, and prolonged stress, such as heart problems, sleep problems, and others, will ideally impact them. Early stress detection is a crucial strategy to overcome the said problems since mental health issues always begin with stress problems. Therefore, in this paper, the MFCCs and TEOMFCCs for stress detection in the women’s gender through deep learning are presented. The stress classification had been made by utilizing the speech features, which are Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs) and Teager Energy Operator-Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (TEO-MFCCs), with the help of Deep Learning technology, which is Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). The Toronto Emotional Speech Set (TESS) has been selected for this study since it consists of women’s speech data. The outcome shows that MFCCs provide better accuracy in predicting women’s stress, with a 98% score outperformed another study using the same dataset.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207