French-Language Adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to adapt the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) protocol for perceptual voice assessment to the French language. The primary objective was to achieve consensus among an international panel of voice experts on the content of the adapted protocol. METHODS: To ensure the relevance and robustness of the French CAPE-V protocol, this study employed a systematic Delphi method and involved an international panel primarily comprising speech therapists and lecturers from France and Belgium. The multi-stage process included an initial panel size of 15 experts. Three rounds of online questionnaires, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data collection, were conducted. Participants provided feedback and ratings on various protocol elements until a consensus was reached. Adaptations targeted the choice of task stimuli (sustained vowel, sentence reading, semi-spontaneous speech), of the rating scales, and vocal quality terminology. RESULTS: The Delphi process achieved consensus on all elements of the adapted CAPE-V protocol. Notably, the sustained vowel task saw consensus in favor of the vowel /a/. Sentence adaptations achieved substantial agreement, with the final set unanimously approved. The simple Visual Analog Scale emerged as the preferred rating scale. Agreement on terms for describing vocal qualities marked a crucial step in establishing a shared vocabulary among French-speaking voice experts. CONCLUSIONS: The study successfully adapted the CAPE-V protocol for perceptual voice assessment to the French language through a systematic Delphi process. The final protocol closely resembles the original English version, maintaining its structure and core objectives. Consensus on sustained vowel tasks, sentence adaptations, rating scales, and vocal quality terminology indicates the relevance and robustness of the adapted protocol. Ongoing validation studies in France demonstrate the potential clinical utility of the adapted CAPE-V in French-speaking contexts, representing a significant step toward standardized and validated voice assessment tools for clinicians and researchers globally.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.122 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".