| """Do the paper's audio-side findings survive when the CONTEXT is heard too? |
| |
| python analysis/07_audio_context_study/02_replication.py |
| python analysis/07_audio_context_study/02_replication.py --skip-models |
| |
| The voice study swapped the voice and held everything else fixed. This study swaps |
| the modality of the conversation history: the same 30 prompts are rated with |
| the history read (the original study) or heard, either in one voice for both |
| speakers (B1) or with a distinct voice per speaker (B2). |
| |
| Every metric is the one _voice_variation_replication.py computes -- imported from there |
| rather than reimplemented, so the two studies cannot drift apart in how a |
| threshold or an ICC is defined. The only differences are which long tables get |
| loaded and which prompt set the reference arms are restricted to (the 30 |
| context prompts, not the 30 voice prompts). |
| |
| B1 is the conservative cell: context modality changes, voice identity does not. |
| B2 adds a second speaker. Reading B2 against B1 rather than against the text |
| baseline is what separates speaker differentiation from audio context itself. |
| """ |
|
|
| |
| import sys |
| from pathlib import Path |
|
|
| sys.path.insert(0, str(Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1] / "common")) |
|
|
| from _audio_context_replication import main |
|
|
| if __name__ == "__main__": |
| main() |
|
|
