A Comparative Approach for Auditing Multilingual Phonetic Transcript Archives
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
Abstract Curating datasets that span multiple languages is challenging. To make the collection more scalable, researchers often incorporate one or more imperfect classifiers in the process, like language identification models. These models, however, are prone to failure, resulting in some language partitions being unreliable for downstream tasks. We introduce a statistical test, the Preference Proportion Test, for identifying such unreliable partitions. By annotating only 20 samples for a language partition, we are able to identify systematic transcription errors for 10 language partitions in a recent large multilingual transcribed audio archive, X-IPAPack (Zhu et al., 2024). We find that filtering these low-quality partitions out when training models for the downstream task of phonetic transcription brings substantial benefits, most notably a 25.7% relative improvement on transcribing recordings in out-of-distribution languages. Our work contributes an effective method for auditing multilingual audio archives.1
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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