Un mot pour un autre ? Analyse et comparaison de huit plateformes de transcription automatique

Élise Tancoigne, J. Corbellini, Gaëlle Deletraz, L. Gayraud, Sandrine Ollinger, D. Valero
{"title":"Un mot pour un autre ? Analyse et comparaison de huit plateformes de transcription automatique","authors":"Élise Tancoigne, J. Corbellini, Gaëlle Deletraz, L. Gayraud, Sandrine Ollinger, D. Valero","doi":"10.1177/07591063221088322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One word for another? Analysis and comparison of eight automatic transcription platforms. This article compares the functionalities and results of eight automatic transcription platforms (Go Transcribe, Happy Scribe, Headliner, Sonix, Video Indexer, Vocalmatic, Vocapia and YouTube), for audio samples in French. We propose an original methodology, designed through an interdisciplinary work, to compare the transcriptions. It combines three complementary approaches: (1) a quantitative approach which compares the textual outcomes using a common metric, the Word Error Rate (WER), (2) a fine-grained approach to classify and understand the errors generated by the platforms, and finally (3) an approach estimating the amount of transcription time which can be saved for each file on each platform. We show that no platform surpassed the others for all the samples, but two nevertheless stood out: Vocapia and Sonix, each with their own areas of expertise. Regardless of the type of file or platform, listening and correcting the text remains a necessary step. However the use of such tools can save up to 75% of time compared with manual transcription. Yet, the use of these online tools can create major problems relating to data confidentiality and security. Finally, we reflect on the interdisciplinary setting that made this project possible.","PeriodicalId":210053,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07591063221088322","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One word for another? Analysis and comparison of eight automatic transcription platforms. This article compares the functionalities and results of eight automatic transcription platforms (Go Transcribe, Happy Scribe, Headliner, Sonix, Video Indexer, Vocalmatic, Vocapia and YouTube), for audio samples in French. We propose an original methodology, designed through an interdisciplinary work, to compare the transcriptions. It combines three complementary approaches: (1) a quantitative approach which compares the textual outcomes using a common metric, the Word Error Rate (WER), (2) a fine-grained approach to classify and understand the errors generated by the platforms, and finally (3) an approach estimating the amount of transcription time which can be saved for each file on each platform. We show that no platform surpassed the others for all the samples, but two nevertheless stood out: Vocapia and Sonix, each with their own areas of expertise. Regardless of the type of file or platform, listening and correcting the text remains a necessary step. However the use of such tools can save up to 75% of time compared with manual transcription. Yet, the use of these online tools can create major problems relating to data confidentiality and security. Finally, we reflect on the interdisciplinary setting that made this project possible.
一个词对另一个词?8个自动转录平台的分析与比较
一个词换另一个词?8种自动转录平台的分析与比较。本文比较了八个自动转录平台(Go transcript, Happy Scribe, Headliner, Sonix, Video Indexer, Vocalmatic, Vocapia和YouTube)的功能和结果,用于法语音频样本。我们提出了一种通过跨学科工作设计的原创方法来比较转录。它结合了三种互补的方法:(1)一种定量方法,使用一个通用的度量来比较文本结果,单词错误率(WER),(2)一种细粒度方法来分类和理解平台产生的错误,最后(3)一种方法来估计每个平台上每个文件可以节省的转录时间。我们表明,没有平台超过其他所有的样本,但两个仍然脱颖而出:Vocapia和Sonix,每个都有自己的专业领域。无论文件类型或平台如何,听和纠正文本仍然是必要的步骤。然而,与手工转录相比,使用这些工具可以节省高达75%的时间。然而,使用这些在线工具可能会产生与数据机密性和安全性相关的主要问题。最后,我们反思了使这个项目成为可能的跨学科环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信