Building Text and Speech Benchmark Datasets and Models for Low‐Resourced East African Languages: Experiences and Lessons
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Africa has over 2000 languages; however, those languages are not well represented in the existing natural language processing ecosystem. African languages lack essential digital resources to effectively engage in advancing language technologies. There is a need to generate high‐quality natural language processing resources for low‐resourced African languages. Obtaining high‐quality speech and text data is expensive and tedious because it can involve manual sourcing and verification of data sources. This paper discusses the process taken to curate and annotate text and speech datasets for five East African languages: Luganda, Runyankore‐Rukiga, Acholi, Lumasaba, and Swahili. We also present results obtained from baseline models for machine translation, topic modeling and classification, sentiment classification, and automatic speech recognition tasks. Finally, we discuss the experiences, challenges, and lessons learned in creating the text and speech datasets.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it