MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132590463

Supporting SENĆOŦEN language documentation efforts with Automatic Speech Recognition

2025· article· en· W7132590463 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mengzhe Geng, Patrick Littell, Aidan Pine, Penáć, M. Tessier, Roland Kühn

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)DocumentationVocabularyWord error rateSpeech technologyLanguage modelSet (abstract data type)Variation (astronomy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SENĆOŦEN language, spoken on the Saanich peninsula of southern Vancouver Island, is in the midst of vigorous language revitalization efforts to turn the tide of language loss as a result of colonial language policies. To support these on-the-ground efforts, the community is turning to digital technology. Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology holds great promise for accelerating language documentation and the creation of educational resources. However, developing ASR systems for SENCOTEN is challenging due to limited data and significant vocabulary variation from its polysynthetic structure and stress-driven metathesis. To address these challenges, we propose an ASR-driven documentation pipeline that leverages augmented speech data from a text-to-speech (TTS) system and cross-lingual transfer learning with Speech Foundation Models (SFMs). An n-gram language model is also incorporated via shallow fusion or n-best restoring to maximize the use of available data. Experiments on the SENCOTEN dataset show aword error rate (WER) of 19.34% and a character error rate (CER) of 5.09% on the test set with a 57.02% out-of-vocabulary (OOV) rate. After filtering minor cedilla-related errors, WER improves to 14.32% (26.48% on unseen words) and CER to 3.45%, demonstrating the potential of our ASR-driven pipeline to support SENCOTEN language documentation.

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 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 score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207