MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7160921222 · doi:10.1121/10.0041466

A Praat script for unsupervised phoneme segmentation based on spectro-temporal representation

2025· article· en· W7160921222 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hahn Koo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTIMITSegmentationRepresentation (politics)SpectrogramSet (abstract data type)Measure (data warehouse)SoftwareBoundary (topology)Data set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unsupervised phoneme segmentation can be useful for corpus-based phonetic research and speech technology. Despite numerous previous studies, software that is straightforward and lightweight to install and execute is hard to find. In response, I present a Praat script which converts input recording to a spectro-temporal representation, measures how the representation differs between either side of each frame, and draws boundaries at peaks of the difference measure. The user can choose from various types of representation (e.g. mel spectrogram, cochleagram) and measure (e.g. cosine distance, spectral transition measure) as well as configure how they are computed and interpreted for peak detection. Experiments suggest that running the script with the log mel spectrogram and spectral transition measure identifies phonetic boundaries at reasonable performance levels: e.g. F-score = 0.771 on the standard TIMIT test set compared with F-score = 0.848 using the Montreal Forced Aligner (McAuliffe et al., 2017) and F-score = 0.837 using a state-of-the-art semi-supervised model based on deep learning (Kreuk et al., 2020). The script is available at the author's website for download as a single file and can be executed via Praat which many phoneticians should already have on their computer.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207