The Impact of Automatic Speech Transcription on Speaker Attribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Speaker attribution from speech transcripts is the task of identifying a speaker from the transcript of their speech based on patterns in their language use. This task is especially useful when the audio is unavailable (e.g., deleted) or unreliable (e.g., anonymized speech). Prior work in this area has primarily focused on the feasibility of attributing speakers using transcripts produced by human annotators. However, in real-world settings, one often only has more errorful transcripts produced by automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems. In this paper, we conduct what is, to our knowledge, the first comprehensive study of the impact of automatic transcription on speaker attribution performance. In particular, we study the extent to which speaker attribution performance degrades in the face of transcription errors, as well as how properties of the ASR system impact attribution. We find that attribution is surprisingly resilient to word-level transcription errors and that the objective of recovering the true transcript is minimally correlated with attribution performance. Overall, our findings suggest that speaker attribution on more errorful transcripts produced by ASR is as good, if not better, than attribution based on human-transcribed data, possibly because ASR transcription errors can capture speaker-specific features revealing of speaker identity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".