MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342593223 · doi:10.3390/app6050125

Augmenting Environmental Interaction in Audio Feedback Systems

2016· article· en· W2342593223 on OpenAlexaff
Seung-Hun Kim, Graham Wakefield, Juhan Nam

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimbreAudio feedbackComputer scienceAudio signalReverberationFeedback loopSIGNAL (programming language)Speech recognitionAcousticsNoise (video)Ambient noise levelEnvironmental noiseAudio signal processingArtificial intelligenceSound (geography)Speech codingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Audio feedback is defined as a positive feedback of acoustic signals where an audio input and output form a loop, and may be utilized artistically. This article presents new context-based controls over audio feedback, leading to the generation of desired sonic behaviors by enriching the influence of existing acoustic information such as room response and ambient noise. This ecological approach to audio feedback emphasizes mutual sonic interaction between signal processing and the acoustic environment. Mappings from analyses of the received signal to signal-processing parameters are designed to emphasize this specificity as an aesthetic goal. Our feedback system presents four types of mappings: approximate analyses of room reverberation to tempo-scale characteristics, ambient noise to amplitude and two different approximations of resonances to timbre. These mappings are validated computationally and evaluated experimentally in different acoustic conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207