MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131593852 · doi:10.1145/1180639.1180751

Hydraulophone design considerations

2006· article· en· W2131593852 on OpenAlexafffund
Steve Mann, Ryan Janzen, Mark Post

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanada Council for the Arts
KeywordsFluteMusical instrumentAcousticsPianoChord (peer-to-peer)Jet (fluid)Displacement (psychology)AerodynamicsPhysicsComputer scienceElectrical engineeringMechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a musical keyboard that is not only velocity-sensitive, but in fact responds to absement (presement), displacement (placement), velocity, acceleration, jerk, jounce, etc. (i.e. to all the derivatives, as well as the integral, of displacement).Moreover, unlike a piano keyboard in which the keys reach a point of maximal displacement, our keys are essentially infinite in length, and thus never reach an end to their key travel. Our infinite length keys are achieved by using water jet streams that continue to flow past the fingers of a person playing the instrument. The instrument takes the form of a pipe with a row of holes, in which water flows out of each hole, while a user is invited to play the instrument by interfering with the flow of water coming out of the holes. The instrument resembles a large flute, but, unlike a flute, there is no complicated fingering pattern. Instead, each hole (each water jet) corresponds to one note (as with a piano or pipe organ). Therefore, unlike a flute, chords can be played by blocking more than one water jet hole at the same time. Because each note corresponds to only one hole, different fingers of the musician can be inserted into, onto, around, or near several of the instrument's many water jet holes, in a variety of different ways, resulting in an ability to independently control the way in which each note in a chord sounds.Thus the hydraulophone combines the intricate embouchure control of woodwind instruments with the polyphony of keyboard instruments.Various forms of our instrument include totally acoustic, totally electronic, as well as hybrid instruments that are acoustic but also include an interface to a multimedia computer to produce a mixture of sounds that are produced by the acoustic properties of water screeching through orific plates, as well as synthesized sounds.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1090.042

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207