ArticlePloS one2026
Linguistic diversity in machine learning training data: Content analysis of English and Finnish soundscape descriptions in audio captioning.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article examines descriptions of auditory experiences used as training data in machine learning. While such training datasets play a key role in machine learning, only a few studies have investigated these training datasets from a linguistic perspective. Making an important contribution to the English-focused field, we compare descriptions produced in two typologically distant languages: English and Finnish. The English descriptions were produced by sighted participants, and the Finnish data both by sighted and non-sighted individuals, offering insight into variation in language use based on sensory experience. First, we provide an overview of the three datasets with a descriptive corpus analysis. The corpus analysis reveals greater variation among the Finnish corpora, in comparison with the English corpus. We attribute this to the use of L2 speakers as informants for the English data, considering potential data quality issues from a linguistic perspective. Second, we report on a qualitative content analysis conducted on a smaller sample of 150 descriptions, examining which elements the participants had identified and chosen to verbalize. In particular, the analysis indicates that the visually disabled participants make use of slightly richer lexical resources, especially in terms of verbalising spatial structure. In addition, a methodological finding of our study captures how the corpus-level and the discourse-level analyses lead to distinct, even seemingly contradictory results: while the corpus analysis focuses on token distributions, the qualitative discourse-level analysis reveals which different semantic domains are prevalent in different subcorpora. This article contributes to the growing research on cross-linguistic and language-internal diversity in the field of machine perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.