Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Male speakers account for 77% of speaking time on U.S. news and talk radio, with the gap holding across the day and every content topic.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Male speakers account for 77% of speaking time on U.S. news and talk radio, with female shares never exceeding 35.8% in any topic and falling to 10.8% in talk-show segments.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-14 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid 77% male airtime measurement on 74 U.S. news/talk stations; topic percentages are too noisy to trust at face value. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09675 v1 pith:BGFMKDAJ submitted 2026-06-06 cs.CY

Gender Gap Analysis in News and Talk Online Radio Broadcast

Gregory Koushnir , Michael Fire , Dima Kagan , Galit Fuhrmann This is my paper
classification cs.CY
keywords gender representationradio broadcastingspeaking timenews and talk radiospeaker diarizationmedia biasautomated audio analysistopic analysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper measures who actually speaks on U.S. news and talk radio by processing more than 1,400 hours of audio from 74 stations recorded over one day. It finds that male voices take about three-quarters of all speaking time, that the imbalance remains during morning and evening commute hours, and that men dominate every topic category examined—including politics, community affairs, and talk shows. Female share peaks only at about 36% even in entertainment news and falls to roughly 11% in talk-show segments. Radio still reaches most Americans weekly, so the voices that fill the air shape who is heard as an authority. The authors also release the automated pipeline they used so the same measurements can be repeated on other audio.

Core claim

Across 74 U.S. news and talk stations and more than 1,400 hours of filtered speech, male speakers account for 77% of total speaking time (standard deviation 6.8%). During commute periods female speaking time stays near 7.5–9.5 minutes per hour while male speaking time is about 30–33 minutes per hour. Male dominance appears in every topic category, with female representation lowest in talk-show segments (10.8%) and highest in entertainment news (35.8%).

What carries the argument

An end-to-end audio pipeline that diarizes speakers, classifies gender from voice embeddings, transcribes speech, and assigns zero-shot topic labels, converting continuous multi-station radio streams into quantified speaking-time and topic shares by gender.

Load-bearing premise

The per-topic gender findings rest on automatic topic labels whose accuracy, by the authors’ own manual check, is only about 46 percent.

What would settle it

Have human coders re-label a large stratified sample of the same segments and recompute male and female speaking shares by topic; if the topic-level gaps shrink or reverse under gold labels, those claims fail (the overall airtime gap can still be checked separately against gender-classification accuracy).

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Typical news-and-talk listeners hear male voices roughly three times as often as female voices overall.
  • Peak listening windows (commute hours) expose audiences to persistently male-dominated speech.
  • Public-discourse topics such as politics, community affairs, and general news carry strong male speaking-time majorities.
  • Even the most balanced stations in the sample stay short of parity, and most stations sit well below 30% female speaking time.
  • The same measurement pipeline can be applied to podcasts, other broadcast streams, or corporate audio to track representation at scale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If airtime exposure shapes perceived authority, the measured gap may reinforce who is treated as a legitimate voice on politics and community issues.
  • A single 24-hour sample leaves open whether the 77% figure is stable across weeks or seasons; multi-day replications would test that.
  • Merging short or interrupted segments into longer content windows could reassign some topic labels without changing the overall speaking-time gap.
  • The few relatively balanced public or diversity-oriented stations suggest programming and ownership choices, not only talent pools, can move the ratio.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper measures gender representation in U.S. news and talk radio from a single 24-hour multi-station recording (74 stations after filtering, >1,400 hours). Using the authors’ VANPY pipeline (diarization, gender classification, Whisper STT, zero-shot topic labels), it reports that male speakers account for 77% (SD 6.8%) of total speaking time, that the gap persists through commute hours (~7.5–9.5 min/h female vs ~30.6–32.9 min/h male), and that male speakers dominate every topic category, with female share lowest in Talk Show Segments (10.8%) and highest in Entertainment News (35.8%). Gender classification is manually validated at 97.8% on 370 segments; topic labels are validated at 46% accuracy / weighted F1 0.49 on 222 segments. VANPY is released as a reusable framework.

Significance. If the overall airtime and daypart results hold, the paper supplies a large-scale, audio-derived quantification of gender exposure on the most-listened U.S. radio format, going beyond staffing counts or small manual samples. The station-level and hourly distributions (Figs. 2–5) and the public VANPY pipeline are genuine contributions: gender classification is validated at high accuracy, the measurement is purely observational, and the tooling is reusable for other audio domains. The topic-level half of the claim is weaker and currently overstated relative to the reported label accuracy, so the paper’s lasting value is primarily the aggregate speaking-time and temporal results plus the open pipeline.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.2 and §5: Topic-level gender claims (Fig. 6; abstract and §4.3 numbers 10.8% Talk Show Segments, 35.8% Entertainment News, and “male dominance across all examined content categories”) rest on facebook/bart-large-mnli zero-shot labels whose manual check yields only 46% accuracy and weighted F1 0.49 on 222 segments. Discussion notes systematic confusions among Community Affairs, Politics & Government, Miscellaneous, and General News—the categories that carry the bulk of hours and the largest reported male-to-female ratios—plus ad and short-segment misassignment. These percentages are simple aggregates of noisy labels and are not shown to be robust. Either re-label a larger stratified sample (or a high-confidence subset), report uncertainty under label noise, or demote topic results to exploratory and remove the specific 10.8%/35.8% figures from the abstract and strongest claims.
  2. §3.1 and axiom of representativeness: The entire corpus is one contiguous 24-hour window (2024-07-31 23:00–2024-08-01 23:00 UTC). Station programming, host schedules, and topic mix vary by day of week and news cycle; a single midweek summer day cannot by itself support claims about “typical” allocation or “consistent” patterns. At minimum, state this limitation prominently in the abstract/results and avoid language that generalizes beyond the sampled day; ideally add a second day or a multi-day subsample for a subset of stations to test stability of the 77% figure and daypart pattern.
  3. §3.2 diarization and call-in quality: Gender accuracy is high (97.8%), but the authors acknowledge overlap segments, mixed-gender segments, and degraded call-in audio as error sources. Because talk radio is rich in call-ins and multi-speaker turns, residual diarization error can still bias duration aggregates (especially if female call-ins are more often truncated or mis-segmented). Report the fraction of duration discarded by YAMNet/non-speech filtering and by multi-speaker/ambiguous segments, and show that the 77% result is stable under reasonable exclusion thresholds.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract vs body: Abstract states female commute time “approximately 7.5–9.5 minutes per hour” and male “30.6–32.9”; §4.2 text gives broader ranges (female 7.3–12.9, male ~30–33). Align the numbers and cite the exact hours used for “commute periods.”
  2. Fig. 6 and topic taxonomy: Candidate list was generated by Claude from one station’s transcript then generalized to 20 labels (Appendix B). State whether any post-hoc merging was done and whether “Commercial Breaks” were excluded from speaking-time denominators.
  3. Typos and consistency: “consistant” (abstract), “allotted duration” vs “air-time,” mixed “female speaking time was approximately” vs “remained approximately.” Standardize terminology (speaking time / airtime / representation).
  4. §2.2 related work: GMMP 2025 and French TV/radio studies are well cited; a short explicit comparison of the 23% female speaking-time figure to those benchmarks would help readers place the result.
  5. Reproducibility: VANPY is said to be public; add a frozen commit/DOI, the exact model checkpoints (Whisper large, BART-MNLI, ECAPA-TDNN, gender model), and the station list already in Appendix A as a machine-readable file.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational measurement and aggregation of AI-labeled audio; self-citation of VANPY is tooling only.

full rationale

The paper reports empirical aggregates (male speaking-time share 77% overall, commute-hour minutes, and per-topic female shares) obtained by applying a fixed pipeline (diarization, gender classifier, Whisper STT, zero-shot BART topic labels) to newly collected 24-hour recordings from 74 stations and then summing durations. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the target quantities and then re-used as a prediction; the reported percentages are direct sums of the labeled segments. The sole self-citation (VANPY [37]) supplies the execution framework and gender model; the authors independently validate that model at 97.8% on 370 held-out segments and report the topic classifier’s own 46% accuracy, so the citation is not load-bearing for the numerical claims. There is no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or definitional identity that forces the headline numbers. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained measurement, not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central airtime claim rests on standard speech-processing components plus a few operational filters and the assumption that a single 24-hour snapshot plus binary voice gender labels adequately represent typical programming. Topic claims add a low-accuracy zero-shot classifier whose candidate list was LLM-generated from one station. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • minimum speech hours per station = 12 hours
    Stations with <12 h speech content were discarded; the threshold is chosen by the authors and directly determines the final 74-station set.
  • minimum words for topic classification = 10 words
    Segments with fewer than 10 transcribed words are excluded from topic analysis; the cutoff is arbitrary and affects which speech enters the topic statistics.
  • number of candidate topics = 20
    Claude was prompted to produce 20 inclusive topics; the exact taxonomy and granularity are author/LLM choices that shape all per-topic percentages.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Binary male/female voice classification is a sufficient and unbiased proxy for speaker gender in broadcast analysis.
    Used throughout; validated only on a 370-segment sample (97.8%). Non-binary or ambiguous voices and call-in quality degradation are noted but not quantified at scale.
  • ad hoc to paper A single contiguous 24-hour recording window is representative of typical station programming and gender allocation.
    All statistics derive from 2024-07-31 23:00–2024-08-01 23:00 UTC; no multi-day or multi-week controls are provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Zero-shot BART-MNLI labels on Whisper transcripts, using an LLM-generated 20-topic list, correctly assign content categories for gender-by-topic analysis.
    Manual audit yields only 46% accuracy; Discussion acknowledges confusion among broad labels and ad misclassification.
  • domain assumption Speaker diarization (pyannote) plus YAMNet speech filtering cleanly isolates individual speakers for duration and gender aggregation.
    Authors note residual errors on overlaps, mixed-gender segments, and music beds; these affect measured minutes.
invented entities (1)
  • VANPY voice-analysis framework independent evidence
    purpose: Integrates multi-channel recording, diarization, embedding extraction, gender classification, STT and topic analysis into a reusable pipeline.
    Presented as an in-house contribution made public; it is software, not a new scientific entity, and has an independent arXiv citation.

reviewed 2026-07-14 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gender Gap Analysis in News and Talk Online Radio Broadcast." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BGFMKDAJ

@misc{pith2026260709675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gender Gap Analysis in News and Talk Online Radio Broadcast},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BGFMKDAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09675}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Radio broadcasting remains a dominant medium of communication, reaching 82% of Americans ages 12 and older weekly. Given its broad media impact, gender representation on radio news and talk stations may play an important role in shaping social and cultural perceptions. In this study, we examined patterns of gender representation in radio broadcasts, focusing on gender-based differences in total speaking time, air-time allocation across the day, and participation across broadcast topics. The dataset comprises filtered recordings from 74 US news and talk radio stations, collected over a 24-hour period and yielding more than 1,400 hours of content. We analyzed the data using VANPY, an in-house voice-analysis framework that combines multi-channel radio recording with AI-based speaker diarization, gender classification, speech-to-text transcription, and topic analysis. The results revealed consistent gender differences in allocated broadcast time, with male speakers accounting for 77% of total speaking time (SD = 6.8%). This gap remained evident during commute periods, when female speaking time was approximately 7.5-9.5 minutes per hour, compared with approximately 30.6-32.9 minutes for male speakers. Topic analysis further showed male dominance across all examined content categories. Female representation was lowest in "Talk Show Segments", where women accounted for only 10.8% of speaking time. Even in "Entertainment News", where female representation was highest, women accounted for only 35.8% of speaking time. Beyond these findings on gender dynamics in broadcast media, VANPY is publicly available and provides a systematic approach for analyzing large-scale audio data. It can be applied not only to radio broadcasts, but also to other audio domains such as human-computer interaction, corporate communication, and security applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09675 by Dima Kagan, Galit Fuhrmann, Gregory Koushnir, Michael Fire.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Processing pipeline for radio broadcast analysis: from broadcast streams to annotated dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gender representation extremes in radio broadcasting (out of 74 stations): Top row shows five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mean and standard deviation of speech time over the day, per gender [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hourly distribution of speaking time across stations by gender. Each box represents the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 24-hour speaking time distribution in a gender-balanced station, showing near-equal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gender Distribution by Topic (Ordered by Female Representation) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Geo-locations of the recorded stations Appendix B A list of candidate topics The topics list was generated using the following prompts: 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Local radio in western europe: Conflicts between the cultures of center and periphery

    Per Jauert. Local radio in western europe: Conflicts between the cultures of center and periphery. Nordicom Review, 18(1):93–106, 1997

    1997

  2. [2]

    The role of radio as the public sphere for public political education in the digital era: Challenges and pitfalls.Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1):2239627, 2023

    Dyan Rahmiati Anang Sujoko and Fathur Rahman. The role of radio as the public sphere for public political education in the digital era: Challenges and pitfalls.Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1):2239627, 2023. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2239627. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2239627

    work page doi:10.1080/23311886.2023.2239627 2023

  3. [3]

    Political talk radio and public opinion.Public opinion quarterly, 64(2):149–170, 2000

    David Barker and Kathleen Knight. Political talk radio and public opinion.Public opinion quarterly, 64(2):149–170, 2000

    2000

  4. [4]

    audio listening trends, Jul 2025

    The record: Q2 u.s. audio listening trends, Jul 2025. URLhttps://www.nielsen.com/insights/ 2025/the-record-q2-audio-listening-trends-2/

    2025

  5. [5]

    Statista Research Department. U.s. radio industry - statistics & facts.https://www.statista.com/ topics/1330/radio/#dossierKeyfigures, 2009. [Online; accessed 07-August-2023]

    2009

  6. [6]

    Radio on demand: New habits of consuming radio content.Global media and communication, 18(1):25–48, 2022

    Tal Laor. Radio on demand: New habits of consuming radio content.Global media and communication, 18(1):25–48, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Modern radio formats: Trends and possibilities.J

    Ed Shane. Modern radio formats: Trends and possibilities.J. Radio Stud., 3:3, 1995

    1995

  8. [8]

    Taylor & Francis, 2004

    Steve Warren.Radio. Taylor & Francis, 2004

    2004

  9. [9]

    Tops of 2019: Radio.https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2019/tops-of- 2019-radio/

    Nielsen. Tops of 2019: Radio.https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2019/tops-of- 2019-radio/. [Online; accessed 19-January-2022]. 15

    2019

  10. [10]

    Radio formats and social media use in europe– 28 case studies of public service practice.Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, 12(1-2):89–107, 2014

    Tiziano Bonini, Elvina Fesneau, J Perez, Corinna Luthje, Stanislaw Jedrzejewski, Albino Pedroia, Ulrike Rohn, Toni Sellas, Guy Starkey, and Fredrik Stiernstedt. Radio formats and social media use in europe– 28 case studies of public service practice.Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, 12(1-2):89–107, 2014

    2014

  11. [11]

    Nielsen topline ratings for subscribing radio stations.https://tlr.nielsen

    The Nielsen Company. Nielsen topline ratings for subscribing radio stations.https://tlr.nielsen. com/tlr/public/market.do?method=loadAllMarket. [Online; accessed 07-August-2023]

    2023

  12. [12]

    What are radio formats?https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-are-radio- formats-and-why-do-they-matter-2315430

    Glenn Halbrooks. What are radio formats?https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-are-radio- formats-and-why-do-they-matter-2315430. [Online; accessed 19-January-2022]

    2022

  13. [13]

    Quality cultures in Finnish and US commercial radio

    Marko Ala-Fossi.Saleable compromises. Quality cultures in Finnish and US commercial radio. Tampere University Press, 2005

    2005

  14. [14]

    Coordination, differentiation, and the timing of radio commercials.Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 15(4):909–942, 2006

    Andrew Sweeting. Coordination, differentiation, and the timing of radio commercials.Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 15(4):909–942, 2006

    2006

  15. [15]

    What happens when the spots come on? 2011 edition.Coleman Insights, 2011

    P Generali, W Kurtzman, and B Rose. What happens when the spots come on? 2011 edition.Coleman Insights, 2011

    2011

  16. [16]

    Mart´ ın-Santana, Clara Muela-Molina, Eva Reinares-Lara, and Miriam Rodr´ ıguez-Guerra

    Josefa D. Mart´ ın-Santana, Clara Muela-Molina, Eva Reinares-Lara, and Miriam Rodr´ ıguez-Guerra. Effectiveness of radio spokesperson’s gender, vocal pitch and accent and the use of music in radio advertising.BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 18(3):143–160, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.brq.2014.06.001. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2014.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brq.2014.06.001 2015

  17. [17]

    The effects of gender-stereotyped radio commercials 1.Journal of applied social psychology, 34(9):1974–1992, 2004

    Wilhelm Hurtz and Kevin Durkin. The effects of gender-stereotyped radio commercials 1.Journal of applied social psychology, 34(9):1974–1992, 2004

    1974

  18. [18]

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018

    Jacek Grekow.Emotion Tracking of Radio Station Broadcasts, pages 85–93. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018. ISBN 978-3-319-70609-2. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-70609-2 8. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70609-2_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70609-2 2018

  19. [19]

    Who said that? impact of source expertise: A generations focused experiment on the perception of radio news sources’ gender, ethos and expertise

    Sufyan M Baksh, Howard Fisher, and Sara Magee. Who said that? impact of source expertise: A generations focused experiment on the perception of radio news sources’ gender, ethos and expertise. KOME: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PURE COMMUNICATION INQUIRY, 10(2):76–92, 2022

    2022

  20. [20]

    Audio and text sentiment analysis of radio broadcasts.IEEE Access, PP:1–1, 01 2023

    Dhariwal, Naman and Akunuri, Sri and Shivama, and Kather, Sharmila. Audio and text sentiment analysis of radio broadcasts.IEEE Access, PP:1–1, 01 2023. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3331226

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2023.3331226 2023

  21. [21]

    Extending radio broadcasting semantics through adaptive audio segmentation automations.Knowledge, 2(3):347–364, 2022

    Rigas Kotsakis and Charalampos Dimoulas. Extending radio broadcasting semantics through adaptive audio segmentation automations.Knowledge, 2(3):347–364, 2022. ISSN 2673-9585. doi: 10.3390/ knowledge2030020. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2673-9585/2/3/20

    2022

  22. [22]

    Radia – radio advertisement detection with intelligent analytics, 2024

    Jorge ´Alvarez, Juan Carlos Armenteros, Camilo Torr´ on, Miguel Ortega-Mart´ ın, Alfonso Ardoiz,´Oscar Garc´ ıa, Ignacio Arranz,´I˜ nigo Galdeano, Ignacio Garrido, Adri´ an Alonso, Fernando Bay´ on, and Oleg Vorontsov. Radia – radio advertisement detection with intelligent analytics, 2024. URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/2403.03538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Deep learning for audio signal processing.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 13(2):206– 219, 2019

    Hendrik Purwins, Bo Li, Tuomas Virtanen, Jan Schl¨ uter, Shuo-Yiin Chang, and Tara Sainath. Deep learning for audio signal processing.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 13(2):206– 219, 2019

    2019

  24. [24]

    Speaker identification through artificial intelligence techniques: A comprehensive review and research challenges.Expert Systems with Applications, 171:114591, 2021

    Rashid Jahangir, Ying Wah Teh, Henry Friday Nweke, Ghulam Mujtaba, Mohammed Ali Al-Garadi, and Ihsan Ali. Speaker identification through artificial intelligence techniques: A comprehensive review and research challenges.Expert Systems with Applications, 171:114591, 2021. ISSN 0957-4174. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114591. URLhttps://www.scie...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114591 2021

  25. [25]

    Shah Fahad, Ashish Ranjan, Jainath Yadav, and Akshay Deepak

    Md. Shah Fahad, Ashish Ranjan, Jainath Yadav, and Akshay Deepak. A survey of speech emotion recognition in natural environment.Digital Signal Processing, 110:102951, 2021. ISSN 1051-2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsp.2020.102951. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1051200420302967

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dsp.2020.102951 2021

  26. [26]

    Voice signatures

    Izhak Shafran, Michael Riley, and Mehryar Mohri. Voice signatures. In2003 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding (IEEE Cat. No. 03EX721), pages 31–36. IEEE, 2003

    2003

  27. [27]

    Automatic recognition of speakers’ age and gender on the basis of empirical studies

    Christian M¨ uller. Automatic recognition of speakers’ age and gender on the basis of empirical studies. InNinth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 2006

    2006

  28. [28]

    Automatic classification of speaker characteristics

    Phuoc Nguyen, Dat Tran, Xu Huang, and Dharmendra Sharma. Automatic classification of speaker characteristics. InInternational Conference on Communications and Electronics 2010, pages 147–152,

    2010

  29. [29]

    doi: 10.1109/ICCE.2010.5670700

    work page doi:10.1109/icce.2010.5670700 2010

  30. [30]

    Montero, and Fer- nando Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez

    Cristina Luna-Jim´ enez, Ricardo Kleinlein, David Griol, Zoraida Callejas, Juan M. Montero, and Fer- nando Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez. A proposal for multimodal emotion recognition using aural transform- ers and action units on ravdess dataset.Applied Sciences, 12(1), 2022. ISSN 2076-3417. doi: 10.3390/app12010327. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/1/327

    work page doi:10.3390/app12010327 2022

  31. [31]

    Efficient feature extraction for fear state analysis from human voice.Indian Journal of Science & Technology, 9(38):1–11, 2016

    Palo Hemanta Kumar and Mihir N Mohanty. Efficient feature extraction for fear state analysis from human voice.Indian Journal of Science & Technology, 9(38):1–11, 2016

    2016

  32. [32]

    Development of a machine-learning based voice disorder screening tool.American Journal of Otolaryngology, 43(2): 103327, 2022

    Jonathan Reid, Preet Parmar, Tyler Lund, Daniel K Aalto, and Caroline C Jeffery. Development of a machine-learning based voice disorder screening tool.American Journal of Otolaryngology, 43(2): 103327, 2022

    2022

  33. [33]

    Introducing ecapa-tdnn and wav2vec2

    Shakeel Ahmad Sheikh, Md Sahidullah, Fabrice Hirsch, and Slim Ouni. Introducing ecapa-tdnn and wav2vec2. 0 embeddings to stuttering detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01564, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Using data science to understand the film industry’s gender gap.Palgrave Communications, 6(1):92, 2020

    Dima Kagan, Thomas Chesney, and Michael Fire. Using data science to understand the film industry’s gender gap.Palgrave Communications, 6(1):92, 2020. ISSN 2055-1045. doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-0436-1. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0436-1

    doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0436-1 2020

  35. [35]

    tomatoes

    David Crider. Of “tomatoes” and men: A continuing analysis of gender in music radio formats.Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 27(1):134–150, 2020

    2020

  36. [36]

    Williamson and Ethan A

    Patricia A. Williamson and Ethan A. Kolek. The underrepresentation of women on commercial fm- radio stations in the top 20 markets.Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 28(2):307–326, 2021. doi: 10.1080/19376529.2020.1751632. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/19376529.2020.1751632

    work page doi:10.1080/19376529.2020.1751632 2021

  37. [37]

    Automatic classifi- cation of news subjects in broadcast news: Application to a gender bias representation analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14180, 2024

    Valentin Pelloin, Lena Dodson, ´Emile Chapuis, Nicolas Herv´ e, and David Doukhan. Automatic classifi- cation of news subjects in broadcast news: Application to a gender bias representation analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14180, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Vanpy: Voice analysis framework, 2025

    Gregory Koushnir, Michael Fire, Galit Fuhrmann Alpert, and Dima Kagan. Vanpy: Voice analysis framework, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17579

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Americans listen to far more radio than podcasts—even young people, new data shows.Forbes, 2024

    Forbes Staff Mary Whitfill Roeloffs. Americans listen to far more radio than podcasts—even young people, new data shows.Forbes, 2024. URLhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/ 04/30/americans-listen-to-far-more-radio-than-podcasts-even-young-people-new-data- shows//. Online article, accessed January 2025

    2024

  40. [40]

    McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2005

    Ian Hutchby.Media talk: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting. McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2005

    2005

  41. [41]

    Routledge, 2013

    Ian Hutchby.Confrontation talk: Arguments, asymmetries, and power on talk radio. Routledge, 2013. 17

    2013

  42. [42]

    Radiotalk: A large-scale corpus of talk radio tran- scripts

    Doug Beeferman, William Brannon, and Deb Roy. Radiotalk: A large-scale corpus of talk radio tran- scripts. InInterspeech 2019, page 564–568. ISCA, September 2019. doi: 10.21437/interspeech.2019-2714. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2019-2714

    work page doi:10.21437/interspeech.2019-2714 2019

  43. [43]

    The kaldi speech recognition toolkit

    Daniel Povey, Arnab Ghoshal, Gilles Boulianne, Lukas Burget, Ondrej Glembek, Nagendra Goel, Mirko Hannemann, Petr Motlicek, Yanmin Qian, Petr Schwarz, et al. The kaldi speech recognition toolkit. InIEEE 2011 workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding. IEEE Signal Processing Society, 2011

    2011

  44. [44]

    Lium spkdiarization: an open source toolkit for diarization

    Sylvain Meignier and Teva Merlin. Lium spkdiarization: an open source toolkit for diarization. InCMU SPUD Workshop, 2010

    2010

  45. [45]

    Michael Furner, Md Zahidul Islam, and Chang-Tsun Li. Knowledge discovery and visualisation frame- work using machine learning for music information retrieval from broadcast radio data.Expert Systems with Applications, 182:115236, 2021. ISSN 0957-4174. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115236. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S09...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115236 2021

  46. [46]

    A deep hybrid model for advertisements detection in broadcast tv and radio content.International Journal of Computational Vision and Robotics, 12(4):397–410, 2022

    Abdesalam Amrane, Abdelkrim Meziane, Abdelmounaam Rezgui, and Abdelhamid Lebal. A deep hybrid model for advertisements detection in broadcast tv and radio content.International Journal of Computational Vision and Robotics, 12(4):397–410, 2022

    2022

  47. [47]

    PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020

    William William Walker Brannon.Mapping US talk radio: a textual survey at scale. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020

    2020

  48. [48]

    Wavepulse: Real-time content analytics of radio livestreams

    Govind Mittal, Sarthak Gupta, Shruti Wagle, Chirag Chopra, Anthony J DeMattee, Nasir Memon, Mustaque Ahamad, and Chinmay Hegde. Wavepulse: Real-time content analytics of radio livestreams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17998, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Women in community radio: a framework of gendered participation.Feminist Media Studies, 19(6):787–802, 2019

    Anne O’Brien. Women in community radio: a framework of gendered participation.Feminist Media Studies, 19(6):787–802, 2019. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2018.1508051. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/ 14680777.2018.1508051

    doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1508051 2019

  50. [50]

    Breaking the silence: community radio, women, and empowerment.Community Development Journal, 56(2):338–355, 01 2020

    Annette Rimmer. Breaking the silence: community radio, women, and empowerment.Community Development Journal, 56(2):338–355, 01 2020. ISSN 0010-3802. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsz030. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsz030

    work page doi:10.1093/cdj/bsz030 2020

  51. [51]

    Gender representation in tv and radio: Automatic information extraction methods versus manual analyses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10316, 2024

    David Doukhan, Lena Dodson, Manon Conan, Valentin Pelloin, Aur´ elien Clamouse, M´ elina Lepape, G´ eraldine Van Hille, C´ ecile M´ eadel, and Marl` ene Coulomb-Gully. Gender representation in tv and radio: Automatic information extraction methods versus manual analyses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10316, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    The gender gap tracker: Using natural language processing to measure gender bias in media.PloS one, 16(1):e0245533, 2021

    Fatemeh Torabi Asr, Mohammad Mazraeh, Alexandre Lopes, Vagrant Gautam, Junette Gonzales, Prashanth Rao, and Maite Taboada. The gender gap tracker: Using natural language processing to measure gender bias in media.PloS one, 16(1):e0245533, 2021

    2021

  53. [53]

    Gmmp 2025 highlights of findings: Progress on a plateau, September

    Global Media Monitoring Project. Gmmp 2025 highlights of findings: Progress on a plateau, September

    2025

  54. [54]

    URLhttps://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/gmmp2025-highlights-of- findings_03092025.pdf

    2025

  55. [55]

    Pyannote.audio: neural build- ing blocks for speaker diarization

    Herv´ e Bredin, Ruiqing Yin, Juan Manuel Coria, Gregory Gelly, Pavel Korshunov, Marvin Lavechin, Diego Fustes, Hadrien Titeux, Wassim Bouaziz, and Marie-Philippe Gill. Pyannote.audio: neural build- ing blocks for speaker diarization. InICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7124–7128. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  56. [56]

    librosa/librosa: 0.9.1, feb 2022

    Brian McFee, Alexandros Metsai, Matt McVicar, Stefan Balke, Carl Thom´ e, Colin Raffel, Frank Za- lkow, Ayoub Malek, Dana, Kyungyun Lee, Oriol Nieto, Dan Ellis, Jack Mason, Eric Battenberg, Scott Seyfarth, Ryuichi Yamamoto, viktorandreevichmorozov, Keunwoo Choi, Josh Moore, Rachel Bittner, Shunsuke Hidaka, Ziyao Wei, nullmightybofo, Adam Weiss, Dar´ ıo He...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6097378 2022

  57. [57]

    SpeechBrain: A general-purpose speech toolkit, 2021

    Mirco Ravanelli, Titouan Parcollet, Peter Plantinga, Aku Rouhe, Samuele Cornell, Loren Lugosch, Cem Subakan, Nauman Dawalatabad, Abdelwahab Heba, Jianyuan Zhong, Ju-Chieh Chou, Sung-Lin Yeh, Szu-Wei Fu, Chien-Feng Liao, Elena Rastorgueva, Fran¸ cois Grondin, William Aris, Hwidong Na, Yan Gao, Renato De Mori, and Yoshua Bengio. SpeechBrain: A general-purpo...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Manoj Plakal and Dan Ellis. Yamnet. URLhttps://github.com/tensorflow/models/tree/master/ research/audioset/yamnet

  59. [59]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision, 2022

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2212. 04356

    2022

  60. [60]

    BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension.https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.13461, 2019

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension.https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.13461, 2019. arXiv:1910.13461

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  61. [61]

    Claude sonnet 3.5 (large language model).https://claude.ai/, 2023

    Anthropic. Claude sonnet 3.5 (large language model).https://claude.ai/, 2023. Accessed: 2025-02- 15

    2023

  62. [62]

    radio.garden, December 2016

    Caroline Mitchell, Lewis Peter, F¨ ollmer Golo, Jauert Per, Kreutzfeldt Jacob, Badenoch Alexander, and de Leeuw Sonja. radio.garden, December 2016. URLhttp://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/id/eprint/ 9477/. 19

    2016

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 14, 2026.