The challenges of archiving networked-based multimedia performances (Performance cryogenics)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music archives and libraries have cultural preservation at the core of their charters. New forms of art often race ahead of the preservation infrastructure. The ability to stream multiple synchronized ultra-low latency streams of audio and video across a continent for a distributed interactive performance such as music and dance with high-definition video and multichannel audio raises a series of challenges for the architects of digital libraries and those responsible for cultural preservation. The archiving of such performances presents numerous challenges that go beyond simply recording each stream. Case studies of storage and subsequent retrieval issues for Internet2 collaborative performances are discussed. The development of shared reality and immersive environments generate issues about, What constitutes an archived performance that occurs across a network (in multiple spaces over time)? What are the families of necessary metadata to reconstruct this virtual world in another venue or era? For example, if the network exhibited changes in latency the performers most likely adapted. In a future recreation, the latency will most likely be completely different. We discuss the parameters of immersive environment acquisition and rendering, network architectures, software architecture, musical/choreographic scores, and environmental acoustics that must be considered to address this problem.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".