Establishing the reliability of metrics extracted from long-form recordings using LENA and the ACLEW pipeline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-form audio recordings are increasingly used to study individual variation, group differences, and many other topics in theoretical and applied fields of developmental science, particularly for the description of children's language input (typically speech from adults) and children’s language output (ranging from babble to sentences). The proprietary LENA software has been available for over a decade, and with it, users have come to rely on derived metrics like adult word count (AWC) and child vocalization counts (CVC), which have also more recently been derived using an open-source alternative, the ACLEW pipeline. Yet, there is relatively little work assessing the reliability of long-form metrics in terms of the stability of individual differences across time. Filling this gap, we analyzed eight spoken-language datasets: four from North American English-learning infants, and one each from British English-, French-, American English-Spanish, and Quechua-Spanish-learning infants. The audio data were analyzed using two types of processing software: LENA and the ACLEW open-source pipeline. When all corpora were included, we found relatively low to moderate reliability (across multiple recordings, intraclass correlation coefficient attributed to the child identity (Child ICC), was <50% for most metrics). There were few differences between the two pipelines. Exploratory analyses suggested some differences as a function of child age and corpora. These findings suggest that, while reliability is likely sufficient for various group-level analyses, caution is needed when using either LENA or ACLEW tools to study individual variation. We also encourage improvement of extant tools, specifically targeting accurate measurement of individual variation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".