MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601113826 · doi:10.1215/01642472-3727996

Sounding Death, Saying Something

2017· article· en· W2601113826 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Text · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSound Studies and Aurality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepth soundingHistoryDead bodyThe arcticGenealogyDislocationSociologyMedia studiesGeographyCartographyArchaeologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay considers what it means to speak into an absence. In particular, the author thinks about a series of recordings from the 1960s in which Inuit in Arctic Canada send messages to their relatives in tuberculosis sanatoria in southern Canada. The dislocation such separation caused was severe. Families who had never been apart were separated for years with little means of communication. Some Inuit died in the sanatoria. Family members had no way of knowing whether the absent were alive or dead. Many had a hard time finding words to speak into the recorder. Nonetheless, they lent their voices to the project. By juxtaposing these “soundings” with dreams Inuit youth have of their dead friends, the author thinks about the possibility of “sending” our voices to the absent/dead and the way they send their voices to us.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.279 · 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