MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029960962 · doi:10.1037/cjep2007006

Categorization of environmental sounds.

2007· article· en· W2029960962 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine Guastavino

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersH2020 EnvironmentFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsCategorizationSituational ethicsPsychologyIdentification (biology)Cognitive psychologyRelation (database)Sound (geography)Relevance (law)Task (project management)sortCommunicationComputer scienceSocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the way in which people categorize environmental sounds in their everyday lives. Previous research has shown that isolated environmental sounds are categorized on the basis of high-level semantic features when the sounds can be attributed to specific sound sources. However, in the presence of numerous sound sources, as occur in most real-world situations, the process of source identification is often hindered. In the present study, a free categorization task with open-ended verbal descriptions was used to investigate auditory categories for environmental sounds in complex real-world sonic environments. Two main categories emerged from the free-sort, reflecting the absence or presence of human activity in relation to hedonic judgments. At a subordinate level, subcategories were mediated by the participant's reported interactions with the environment through socialized activities. The spontaneous verbal descriptors collected were successful in discriminating categories. These findings indicate that complex environmental sounds are processed and categorized as meaningful events providing relevant information about the environment. The relevance of situational factors in categorization and the notion of auditory category in its relation to linguistic labeling are then discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207