Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improvisation has always been at the heart of the laptop ensemble and it constitutes a core force in the evolution of individual laptop orchestras and the art form at large. A drive to innovate artistically, technologically, and collaboratively opens the way for many new modes of improvisation that are unique to the laptop-orchestra (or LOrk) setting, such as improvising with collective instruments, gestural controllers, and live coding. Navigating these novel logistical settings, collaborative forms, technologies, and sonic structures demands rapid, creative responses to emergent possibilities and challenges. Due to their tradition-defying, multidimensional, and hybridic nature at cultural, stylistic, geographical, personal, social, and technological levels, laptop orchestras may be viewed as a matrix of related behaviours and beliefs rather than a definite genre. In this essay I focus on how non-idiomatic improvisation serves as a crucial local and global evolutionary force within LOrk culture by breaking with old patterns to discover new sui generis expressive possibilities and by developing skills that radically expand improvisatory strategies. I also provide a snapshot of current improvisatory practices that are unique or have special implications for laptop orchestras (based on extensive contact and email interviews with laptop orchestra directors and members across various geographical and cultural contexts). Additionally, I offer my own experiences as founder and director of the Concordia Laptop Orchestra (CLOrk).
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".