aidataservices.inAI data collection · India

Dataset specification · Evaluation scale

100 hours of Gujarati Spontaneous Speech

An evaluation scale build of 100 hours of Gujarati spontaneous speech. Building a benchmark or evaluation set that is large enough to trust, or fine-tuning a narrow domain. Speakers talk unscripted on prompted topics — describing a process, recounting an event, arguing a position — with a moderator who prompts but does not lead.

Request a dataset quoteReply within one working day
Structured dataset packages ready for delivery — 100 hours of Gujarati Spontaneous Speech
Volume
100 hours
Scale
Evaluation scale
Per speaker
25–40 minutes of accepted audio per speaker
Accepted yield
60–70% of recorded time is accepted
01

How Gujarati spontaneous speech is captured

Speakers talk unscripted on prompted topics — describing a process, recounting an event, arguing a position — with a moderator who prompts but does not lead.

A 60-minute session covering six to eight topics, recorded continuously and segmented afterwards into utterances at natural pause boundaries.

Yield at this style: 60–70% of recorded time is accepted. Long silences, moderator speech and abandoned topics are cut in post, so recorded hours run well ahead of delivered hours. Budget for the gap.

Evaluation scale — what the build is actually made ofCitiesTwo, chosen for dialect…StudiosTwo rooms running in pa…RecruitersTwo coordinatorsSpeakers~200–240Sessions per day12–16 across both citiesTeam2 coordinators, 4 engin…
02

The specification

FieldValue
LanguageGujarati (gu-IN, Gujarati)
Volume100 hours
Equivalent200 speakers at 30 minutes each, or 100 speakers at one hour each
Speech typeSpontaneous Speech
Per speaker25–40 minutes of accepted audio per speaker
File granularitySession-length WAV plus segmented utterance files with offsets into the parent
SegmentationPause-boundary segmentation, reviewed by a native listener rather than left to VAD
Moderator channelRecorded separately and excluded from the delivered speaker audio
Disfluency conventionFilled pauses, repetitions and false starts transcribed, not normalised away
DialectsStandard (Amdavadi), Surti, Kathiyawadi, Kachchhi-influenced
TranscriptionVerbatim, native-speaker, second-pass reviewed
Annotators writing prompts and responses for LLM training data — supporting 100 hours of gujarati spontaneous speech
Annotators writing prompts and responses for LLM training data
03

Designing the topic bank for Gujarati

  • Topic banks graded by familiarity, so speakers across education and occupation bands all have something to say
  • Open prompts only — anything answerable with yes or no produces thirty seconds of audio and a stalled session
  • Culturally grounded topics per region, since a prompt that works in Mumbai can draw blank looks in Guwahati
  • Topic rotation across the cohort so the corpus does not over-represent a handful of subjects
  • Built against Gujarati specifically: Murmured (breathy-voiced) vowels are phonemic in Gujarati and are absent from most shared Indic acoustic models
  • Code-mixing handled explicitly rather than edited out — Business and trade vocabulary is heavily English; Gujarati diaspora speech adds further English structure. Specify whether diaspora speakers are in or out of scope.
04

Running an evaluation scale Gujarati build

Four to six weeks. Two cities running in parallel means recruitment and recording overlap rather than queue behind each other.

Three batches at roughly two-week intervals, each one a self-contained, speaker-disjoint slice you can evaluate independently.

Surat and Rajkot recruitment is essential for dialect coverage; Ahmedabad-only cohorts sound uniform.

ParameterAt this volume
CitiesTwo, chosen for dialect contrast — Ahmedabad, Surat
StudiosTwo rooms running in parallel
RecruitersTwo coordinators
Speakers~200–240
Sessions per day12–16 across both cities
Team2 coordinators, 4 engineers, 6 transcribers, 1 QA lead
05

Cohort design

At 100 hours the cohort is deliberately simplified: two or three dialect groups rather than the full spread, with quotas enforced in aggregate. A build this size cannot support per-cell targets and should not claim to.

Screening is for willingness to talk, not literacy, which opens the cohort to speakers a scripted protocol would exclude. Expect to over-recruit by 15% for speakers who freeze on the day.

DimensionTypical splitWhy it matters for Gujarati
Gender50 / 50Pitch range differences change acoustic model behaviour; unbalanced cohorts bias recognition
Age18-25: 30%, 26-40: 40%, 41-60: 30%Older speakers retain conservative Gujarati forms that younger urban speakers have lost
RegionGujarat / Daman & Diu / Dadra & Nagar Haveli and othersDialect spread across 5 recognised varieties
EducationMixed, including below-graduatePrompt-reading fluency correlates with education and skews prosody
ConditionStudio / quiet room / fieldMatch the noise profile of your deployment
06

Gujarati-specific considerations

  • Murmured (breathy-voiced) vowels are phonemic in Gujarati and are absent from most shared Indic acoustic models
  • Business and trade vocabulary is heavily English; Gujarati diaspora speech adds further English structure. Specify whether diaspora speakers are in or out of scope.
  • Very little spontaneous Gujarati audio exists publicly; nearly all of it is Ahmedabad read speech.
07

Quality gates for spontaneous speech

  • Segment boundary review — bad boundaries produce truncated words that poison training more than they help
  • Disfluency transcription consistency audited across transcribers, since conventions drift fast on this style
  • Moderator speech confirmed absent from delivered segments
  • Topic distribution checked per speaker so one dominant subject does not skew the language model
  • Breathy vowels have no consistent orthographic marking
  • Kathiyawadi lexical items replaced with standard equivalents

100% technical QA, 25% content QA, escalating to full review on any batch that fails the agreed error threshold.

08

What goes wrong on spontaneous speech sessions

  • Speakers who dry up after a minute, leaving sessions that look complete by duration but are mostly silence
  • Drift into a reading register when a speaker becomes self-conscious about the microphone
  • Moderator over-prompting, which turns a monologue corpus into an interview corpus
  • Transcriber normalisation — quietly cleaning up disfluencies destroys the exact signal this style exists to capture
09

Risks at evaluation scale in Gujarati

Cost at this band is driven by: Dialect spread is the main driver at this band — two contrasting cities cost more than two convenient ones; Turnaround compression, if you need it inside four weeks.

  • Two-city cohorts can hide a dialect gap that only appears when the model meets a third region
  • Transcription consistency between two city teams needs an explicit convention document or the batches will not match
  • Gujarati carries 5 recognised varieties across Gujarat, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, so the quota matrix is wider than the headline volume suggests
  • Very little spontaneous Gujarati audio exists publicly; nearly all of it is Ahmedabad read speech.
10

Deliverables

  • WAV audio to your naming convention, with the per-file manifest
  • Verbatim Gujarati transcripts with utterance-level timestamps
  • Filled-pause and false-start markers
  • Segment offsets into the parent session file
  • Topic label per segment
  • Speech-rate and pause-density statistics per speaker
  • Per-speaker metadata: age band, gender, region, dialect, education band
  • Consent records mapped to speaker IDs
  • QA report with pass rates, rejection reasons and agreement statistics
  • Speaker-disjoint train / dev / test splits on request
11

What this trains, and what it does not

  • Robust ASR for real user speech
  • Language modelling on natural syntax
  • Disfluency detection and removal
  • Prosody and speech-rate modelling

Phonetic balance cannot be guaranteed — speakers say what they say. If you need specific phone contexts or a controlled lexicon, this style has to be paired with a scripted layer.

Frequently asked

Is 100 hours of Gujarati enough?

A solid evaluation set, and enough to fine-tune an existing multilingual model on a narrow domain. Still short of what a general production model needs.

Why spontaneous speech rather than another speech type?

Robust ASR for real user speech, Language modelling on natural syntax, Disfluency detection and removal are what this style is the right input for. Phonetic balance cannot be guaranteed — speakers say what they say. If you need specific phone contexts or a controlled lexicon, this style has to be paired with a scripted layer.

How long does an evaluation scale Gujarati build take?

Four to six weeks. Two cities running in parallel means recruitment and recording overlap rather than queue behind each other. Three batches at roughly two-week intervals, each one a self-contained, speaker-disjoint slice you can evaluate independently.

What does 100 hours of Gujarati spontaneous speech cost?

Quoted per delivered hour against this specification. At this band the drivers are dialect spread is the main driver at this band — two contrasting cities cost more than two convenient ones and turnaround compression, if you need it inside four weeks. Send the spec and you get one fixed figure.

How much QA is applied at this volume?

100% technical QA, 25% content QA, escalating to full review on any batch that fails the agreed error threshold.

Quote this Gujarati dataset

100 hours, spontaneous speech, Gujarati — evaluation scale. Adjust anything and send it.

Request a dataset quote