Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores the role of the listener/participant in the process of shaping sound works. I consider factors both internal to the works’ structures and inner dynamics, as well as external to them, and how they are determined by ever shifting parameters of context within which they are received. The analysis revolves around two very different artistic works : Takeshi Kosugi’s audio-visual installation Mano Dharma, electronic (1967), exhibited at the IKON Gallery in Birmingham in September 2015, and Between, an immersive performance piece that uses the audio-walk as its main strategy, created by Theatre Studies students at the University of Warwick in June 2015. My approach to these works relies on the assumption of a semiotic impulse which imposes itself as the urge to engage the process of meaning making, followed by the strategy I propose as ideally suited to the interpretation of these works, a process I call reading-into . Reading-into is proposed variably as both a deliberate phenomenological strategy and a form of involuntary imposition of the semiotic impulse to ask the following questions : What are the possibilities and limits of the listener/participant’s reading-into ? How does reading-into relate to existing theoretical frameworks concerning aesthetic reception? What are the elements within and without the work itself that shape the process of reading-into ? How do unreadable elements of the work which resist semiotization shape our modes of engagement?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".