MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762704178 · doi:10.7202/1051192ar

Reading into Soundscapes: Between Ma and Concretization

2018· article· en· W2762704178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siljiva Jestrovic

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sémiotiques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)SemioticsMeaning (existential)SoundscapeAestheticsMultimodalityInterpretation (philosophy)Visual artsPhenomenology (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Impulse (physics)SociologyLinguisticsComputer scienceEpistemologyArtAcousticsHistorySound (geography)Philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches sémiotiquesSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207