Keep the noise down: On the performance of automatic speech recognition of voice-recordings in web surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voice-recordings are increasingly implemented in web surveys, but the resulting audio data need to be transcribed before analysis. Since manual coding is too time- and work-intensive, researchers often rely on automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems for the transcription of the voice-recordings. However, ASR tools might create partly incorrect transcriptions and potentially change the content of responses. If the ASR performance (i.e., accuracy and validity) differs by subgroup and contextual factors, a bias is introduced in the analysis of open-ended questions. We assessed the impact of sociodemographic and contextual factors on the accuracy and validity of ASR transcriptions with data from the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel collected in December 2020. We find that background noise reduces the accuracy and validity of ASR transcriptions. In addition, validity improved when the respondent was alone during the survey. Fortunately, we did not find any evidence of systematic differences across subgroups (age, sex, education), devices or respondent location.
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 | 0.339 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".