<i>Aurality: Listening and Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century Colombia</i>, by Ana María Ochoa Gautier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aurality: Listening and Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century Colombia, by Ana Maria Ochoa Gautier. Series: Sign, Storage, Transmission. Durham & London, Duke University Press, 2014. xiii, 266 pp. $89.95 US (cloth), $24.95 US (paper). Ethnomusicologists and historians reveal a rich repository of sounds and silences in their examination of how voicing, hearing, and listening as interpretive acts are used politically to promote belonging and recognition, and in so doing, in conflicting ways, create unequal modem power dynamics. Building on extensive experience working in the creation of cultural policy in Colombia and knowledge of music and transculturation in Latin America and the Caribbean, Ochoa examines the interpretation and meaning of the aural in nineteenth-century Colombia. Her work is a much-awaited contribution to the cultural history of Colombia, and to the body of literature on how sound links humanity to environment. The junction of Europe and the Americas provides the backdrop for Ochoa's examination of the ways nineteenth century scientists, intellectuals, and politicians lent an ear, transcribed into writing, and policed the sounds of a geographically fragmented and racially divided colonial society, built by a Catholic Conservative elite, which crystalized linguistically at the century's end. Ochoa describes the different ways in which sound united Europeans, peoples of European descent, and the Conservative elite with indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, and mestizos, or mixed-raced peoples, in unexpected ways, and the intellectual authority, beliefs, and values the former drew from in order to set themselves apart from and above the others. Ochoa's analysis of the works of prominent scientists, intellectuals, and politicians published during the nineteenth century, in Europe, the US, and Colombia, sheds light on the constitution of political subjects and their relation to the natural environment. In chapter one, the travel accounts of Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), amongst others, on the Magdalena river offer a glimpse into the sounds made by the bogas, mixed-raced oarsmen, which were likened to the lowly sounds of animals, defying description as either speech or song. Chapter two turns to fiction, histories of literature and songbooks, and renowned men of letters such as Jose Maria Vergara y Vergara (1831-1872), Candelario Obeso (1849-1884), and Jorge Isaacs (1837-1895) in order to discuss the gap between popular song and what is heard (or misheard), what is felt, and what is recorded in writing (or misspelled). These two chapters address the problem of the inscription of the Afro-descendant voice and the normalization of speech utterances. The works of Ezequiel Uricoechea (1834-1880), Isaacs, and Miguel Antonio Caro (1843-1909) relate the inscription of indigenous languages, between the sixteenth and the nineteenth centuries, by use of the Spanish alphabet by Catholic missionaries to its place in the national project. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".