MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388097452 · doi:10.18280/ts.400518

A Comprehensive Examination of Phoneme Recognition in Automatic Speech Recognition Systems

2023· article· en· W4388097452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shobha Bhatt, Shweta Bansal, Ankit Kumar, Saroj Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Ojha, Kamred Udham Singh, Sanjay Chakraborty, Teekam Singh, Chetan Swarup

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeech recognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Natural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review offers an exhaustive examination of phoneme recognition, an essential subword acoustic unit in speech processing.Phoneme-based systems find widespread utility in diverse applications including speech recognition, speaker identification, and language recognition.The efficacy of these systems hinges upon the precise recognition of phonemes, thereby underscoring the criticality of enhancing our understanding of phoneme recognition to optimize system performance.Previous reviews have primarily focused on specific issues within the realm of phoneme recognition, with comprehensive studies on the subject being notably sparse in existing literature.Consequently, there is an urgent need for an extensive investigation into phoneme recognition to bolster recognition accuracy.This comprehensive review seeks to bridge this knowledge gap by examining pivotal aspects such as vowel recognition, consonant recognition, acoustic-phonetic cues, contextual effects, feature extraction methods, classification techniques, phoneme recognition enhancement strategies, and performance metrics.The review elucidates various technologies and trends in phoneme recognition, thereby providing valuable insights that can mitigate errors in phoneme-based systems through the application of appropriate techniques delineated in the study.The findings of this study hold substantial potential benefits for a wide spectrum of speech research communities, encompassing students, educators, specialists, developers, and scholars.The review encompasses both fundamental and advanced concepts pertinent to phoneme recognition, thereby offering a comprehensive resource for individuals engaged in this field.

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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207