Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo de este artículo es proponer una mirada alternativa al paisaje urbano contemporaneo, con el fin de mostrar los límites de la práctica actual del diseño de la ciudad, que solo considera la aceptación negativa de los sonidos y ruidos percibidos en el contexto urbano. La disciplina de los soundscape studies –estudios del paisaje sonoro– nació en los años setenta en Canada, aunque ya en estos años los investigadores del MIT habían anticipado algunas reflexiones sobre la importancia de la percepción auditiva en la comprensión de la ciudad. Estas investigaciones abrieron las puertas a un nuevo paradigma cognitivo con el cual estudiar el paisaje urbano, y nos hacen entender como los estímulos acústicos representan una dimensión cultural fundamental e independiente del paisaje. La introducción de los activos intangibles en la lista de los Patrimonios de la Humanidad de la UNESCO es una prueba de la importancia fundamental de los sonidos de las poblaciones como herencia cultural.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".