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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Audio annotation is key to developing machine-listening systems; yet, effective ways to accurately and rapidly obtain crowdsourced audio annotations is understudied. In this work, we seek to quantify the reliability/redundancy trade-off in crowdsourced soundscape annotation, investigate how visualizations affect accuracy and efficiency, and characterize how performance varies as a function of audio characteristics. Using a controlled experiment, we varied sound visualizations and the complexity of soundscapes presented to human annotators. Results show that more complex audio scenes result in lower annotator agreement, and spectrogram visualizations are superior in producing higher quality annotations at lower cost of time and human labor. We also found recall is more affected than precision by soundscape complexity, and mistakes can be often attributed to certain sound event characteristics. These findings have implications not only for how we should design annotation tasks and interfaces for audio data, but also how we train and evaluate machine-listening systems.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it