Disentangling acoustic and social biases in creaky voice perception: The effects of f0 and face gender on creakiness ratings
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
Creaky voice has historically been associated with men’s speech, supported by acoustic studies. Since around 2010, however, sociolinguistic work alongside public discourse has perpetuated greater creaky voice use by women, typically implementing impressionistic coding. This study investigates whether this recent shift can be attributed to perceptual social and acoustic biases related to (perceived) speaker gender and pitch (f0), respectively. Using a matched-guise paradigm, 40 Canadian English listeners rated the perceived creakiness of the same modal and creaky voices—altered to have ambiguously gendered formants and median f0s (115, 135, 155 Hz)—paired with female and male faces. Bayesian regression analyses revealed strong effects of voice quality and moderate effects of f0: Creaky and lower-f0 stimuli were rated as creakier. No overall effect of face gender was found. However, a weak interaction between face gender and f0 suggests a possible gender prototypicality bias: At lower f0s, female faces were rated as slightly creakier than male faces and at higher f0s, male faces were rated creakier than female faces. These findings show that neither acoustic nor gender-based biases alone can account for widespread reports of women-led creaky voice use. Several possible explanations for this discrepancy are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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