MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620543057 · doi:10.7202/1039654ar

Exhibiting Music in a Sound Community

2017· article· en· W2620543057 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueEthnologies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSound (geography)Reciprocity (cultural anthropology)Subject (documents)AcousticsEcologyPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exhibiting music in a sound community announces the presence and potential of an ecological rationality. Two or more beings co-present to each other in sound resonate at the same frequency with one another and comprise a sound community. Co-presence in sound is intersubjective and relational, a subject-to-subject resonant and reciprocal way of knowing, rather than a subject-to-object, asymmetrical and manipulative knowledge. In a sound community music is communicative, as natural as breathing, participatory and exchanged freely, strengthening and sustaining individuals and communities. A sound community exhibits a sound economy, just, participatory and egalitarian. Wealth and power are widely distributed and shared, and maintained through the visible hand of democratic management. A sound economy is based in a sound ecology where exchanges are based in honest signals that invite reciprocity and trust. In a sound ecology, sound being and sound knowing lead to sound action, which is cooperative, mutually beneficial, and just.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.238 · 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