Progress in Understanding Auditory Scene Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I make the following claims: (1) Subjective experience is tremendously useful in guiding productive research. (2) Studies of auditory scene analysis (ASA) in adults, newborn infants, and non-human animals (e.g., in goldfish or pigeons) establish the generality of ASA and suggest that it has an innate foundation. (3) ASA theory does not favor one musical style over another. (4) The principles used in the composition of polyphony (slightly modified) apply not only to one particular musical style or culture but to any form of layered music. (5) Neural explanations of ASA do not supersede explanations in terms of capacities; the two are complementary. (6) In computational auditory scene analysis (CASA) – ASA by computer systems – or any adequate theory of ASA, the most difficult challenge will be to discover how the contributions of a very large number of types of acoustical evidence and top-down schemas (acquired knowledge about the sound sources in our environments), can be coordinated without producing conflict that disables the system. (7) Finally I argue that the movement of a listener within the auditory scene provides him/her/it with rich information that should not be ignored by ASA theorists and researchers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it