Assessing Gender Bias in Auditory-Perceptual Ratings of Tracheoesophageal Speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examined the relationship between gender and auditory-perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal (TE) speech. Method: We collected auditory-perceptual judgments of two features, speech acceptability and listener comfort, from normal-hearing young adult listeners (n = 16) who were naïve to TE speech. Auditory-perceptual judgments were made for 12 TE speakers (6 men and 6 women) on two occasions separated by between 7 and 14 days. During the first session, listeners were deceived about the gender of the voice samples presented, and in the second session, listeners were informed of the true gender of the voice samples. Results: The findings suggest that a gender bias exists in perceptions of TE speech, and that female TE speakers tend to be disproportionately penalized when compared to their male counterparts when gender is known. Conclusions: These data provide insights into the potential influence of speaker gender on listener judgments of TE speech and the impact that such factors may have on communication. Our data indicate that listeners rate female TE speaker samples as less acceptable and less comfortable to listen to when the samples are known to be female speakers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".