MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294390343 · doi:10.1145/2814895.2814927

Automatic Recognition of Eventfulness and Pleasantness of Soundscape

2015· article· en· W2294390343 on OpenAlexaff
Jianyu Fan, Miles Thorogood, Bernhard E. Riecke, Philippe Pasquier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoundscapeArousalGeneralizability theoryValence (chemistry)Speech recognitionComputer scienceAffect (linguistics)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyAcousticsSound (geography)CommunicationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A soundscape is the sound environment perceived by a given listener at a given time and space. An automatic soundscape affect recognition system will be beneficial for composers, sound designers, and audio researchers. Previous work on an automatic soundscape affect recognition system has demonstrated the effectiveness of predicting valence and arousal on responses from one expert user. Thus, further validations of multi-users' data are necessary for testing the generalizability of the system. We generated a gold standard by averaging responses from people provided people agreed with each other enough. Here, we model a set of common audio features extracted from a corpus of 120 soundscape recording samples that were labeled for valence and arousal in an online study with human subjects. The contribution of this manuscript is threefold: (1) study the inter-rater agreement showing the high level agreement between participants' responses regarding valence and arousal, (2) train stepwise linear regression models with the average responses of participants for soundscape affect recognition, which obtains better results than the previous study, (3) test the correlation between the level of pleasantness and the level of eventfulness based upon the gold standard.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207