MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403559232 · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100593

Trends in audio scene source counting and analysis

2024· article· en· W4403559232 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning with Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersToronto Metropolitan University
KeywordsComputer scienceAudio analyzerAudio signal processingSpeech recognitionAudio signalSpeech coding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Audio scene analysis involves a variety of tasks to obtain information from an audio environment. Audio source counting is one such task that has implications to many other aspects of audio analysis, yet it is relatively unexplored. This work presents the first review of the audio source counting literature and aims to convey the significance of this task to the wider domain of audio analysis. We identify and discuss connections between audio source counting and other more commonly studied audio analysis tasks. In addition, a review of the publicly available audio datasets is presented, highlighting the lack of datasets geared towards audio source counting. Our goal of this review paper is to promote future research of audio source counting. • Audio source counting determines the number of sound events in an audio recording. • Research shows audio source counting can help reduce errors in audio analysis. • A lack of audio source counting datasets and data standardization impedes research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it