MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408928818 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1484521

Interactive Panel Summaries of the 2024 Voice AI Symposium

2025· review· en· W4408928818 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Christophe Bélisle‐Pipon, James Anibal, Ruth Huntley Bahr, Steven Bedrick, Oita C Coleman, David A Dorr, Barbara J. Evans, Guy Fagherazzi, Alexander Gelbard, Satrajit Ghosh, Anita Ho, Christie Jackson, Dale Joachim, Lampros Kourtis, Andrea Krussel, Amir Lahav, Breanna Leuze, Bob MacDonald, Matthew R. Naunheim, Maria Powell, Anaïs Rameau, Sat Ramphal, Vardit Ravitsky, Charlie Reavis, Samantha Salvi Cruz, Jamie Toghranegar, Adam P. Vogel, Stephanie Watts, Joseph Yracheta, Robin Zhao, Yaël Bensoussan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanel discussionViewpointsEvent (particle physics)ConversationComputer scienceTranscription (linguistics)MultimediaDialog boxWorld Wide WebPsychologyVisual artsCommunicationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2024 Voice AI Symposium presented by the Bridge2AI-Voice Consortium, was a 2-day event which took place May 1st-May 2nd in Tampa, FL. The event included four interactive panel sessions, which are summarized here. All four interactive panels featured an innovative format, designed to maximize engagement and facilitate deep discussions. Each panel began with a 45 min segment where moderators posed targeted questions to expert panelists, delving into complex topics within the field of voice AI. This was followed by a 45 min "stakeholder forum," during which audience members asked questions and engaged in live interactive polls. Interactive polls stimulated meaningful conversation between panelists and attendees, and brought to light diverse viewpoints. Workshops were audio recorded and transcripts were assembled with assistance from generative A.I tools including Whisper Version 7.13.1 for audio transcription and ChatGPT version 4.0 for content summation. Content was then reviewed and edited by authors.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Digital HealthSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207