MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409088611 · doi:10.1515/comp-2025-0023

Speech emotion recognition using long-term average spectrum

2025· article· en· W4409088611 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Computer Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Speech recognitionPsychologyBusinessAudiologyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Automatic speech emotion recognition has become an important research subject in the area of speech signal processing. The performance of classification algorithms depends on the features extracted from speech. In this work, a new framework for emotion recognition is proposed based on the long-term average spectrum (LTAS). Our framework is evaluated through a comparative study, where classifiers such as artificial neural network, K-nearest neighbours, logistic regression, Bayesian algorithms, tree-based logistics, and support vector machine were used. The framework was experimentally tested using the well-known Toronto Emotional Speech Set database, and the results were compared against state-of-the-art alternatives, using mel frequency cepstral coefficients, filter bank energies, and chroma coefficient speech coding, on this database. Comparative experiments showed that the use of LTAS achieved higher performance, with accuracies of 96–99% in terms of correct classification of speech emotion, compared with the best performance of 97% for the state-of-the-art alternatives. Different sampling frequencies were used to extract LTAS, and the classifiers were tested individually. The main contribution of this work is to demonstrate that the new framework using LTAS significantly reduces the number of parameters down to 87.5 values per s (approximately), as opposed to the 1,200 values used in the best-performing state-of-the-art alternatives; this means that the process of feature extraction is significantly reduced and the performance in terms of correct classification is improved.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.297 · 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