The development of synthetic child speech in three South African languages
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
It is well-known that children with expressive communication difficulties have the right to communicate, but they should also have the right to do so in whichever language they choose, with a voice that closely matches their age, gender, and dialect. This study aimed to develop naturalistic synthetic child speech, matching the vocal identity of three children with expressive communication difficulties, using Tacotron 2, for three under-resourced South African languages, namely South African English (SAE), Afrikaans, and isiXhosa. Due to the scarcity of child speech corpora, 2 hours of child speech data per child was collected from three 11- to 12-year-old children. Two adult models were used to "warm start" the child speech synthesis. To determine the naturalness of the synthetic voices, 124 listeners participated in a mean opinion score survey (Likert Score) and optionally gave qualitative feedback. Despite limited training data used in this study, we successfully developed a synthesized child voice of adequate quality in each language. This study highlights that with recent technological advancements, it is possible to develop synthetic child speech that matches the vocal identity of a child with expressive communication difficulties in different under-resourced languages.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it