Intimacy in performance venues: Towards a socioecological methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimacy can be subjectively defined as the feeling of closeness to performance. Intimacy has been widely correlated with the initial time delay gap, the delay between the direct sound and early reflections in a venue [Beranek, Concert and Opera Halls: How They Sound (Acoustical Society of America, New York, 1996)]. Contemporary research suggests that visual stimuli have considerable bearing upon intimacy perception [e.g., Cabrera and Nguyen, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 2475 (2004)]. Building upon paradigms of ecological psychology, the author hypothesizes that social affordances, perceived offerings of social propinquity in a venue, will significantly enhance the auditory impression of intimacy. A socioecological approach to weigh the hypothesis is proposed wherein auditory perception is evaluated in the context of both the physical and the social environment. The methodology will employ interviews, ethnographic analyses, field studies, and laboratory tests. The research results will likely have immediate ramifications for the tools of visualization and auralization, its acoustical analogue. The study has broader ramifications for the design process, engendering the possibility of more humane design of artistic listening spaces through understanding reciprocal relationships between physical, acoustical, and social domains. [Work supported by ASA Minority Fellowship and RPI Humanities, Arts, Architecture, and Social Sciences Fellowship.]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".