How does activity affect soundscape assessments? Insights from an urban soundscape intervention with music
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between activity and soundscape has recently garnered research attention, particularly in public spaces. In the summer of 2015, we installed an interactive sound system (Musikiosk) in a busy public park allowing users to play their own content over high-quality speakers. Questionnaires (N = 197) were administered over 3 conditions: pre-installation with park users, during the installation phase with Musikiosk users, and during the installation phase with park users not using Musikiosk. For users and observers of Musikiosk, a separate evaluation of the Musikiosk intervention was also included. The questionnaire included quantitative evaluations (soundscapes scale from Swedish Soundscape Quality Protocol, restorativeness, mood, noise sensitivity), free response data (soundscape description, self-reported activity, sound source identification, reasons for park visit), and demographic info (age, interaction with others, proximity of residence). The qualitative descriptions of activity and sound sources were categorized into emergent themes. Presented here is the analysis of the interaction between activity and soundscape assessment in terms of quantitative variables and qualitative descriptions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".