MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112565227 · doi:10.25071/1708-6701.40377

Listening to Music “in” the Library

2020· article· en· W3112565227 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lucinda Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueCAML Review / Revue de l ACBM · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Musicological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningDigital audioMultimediaWorld Wide WebComputer scienceAdvertisingBusinessSociologyTelecommunicationsAudio signal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital and streaming audio and video (A/V) content have usurped the primacy of physical media materials and their playback technology within institutional music libraries, notwithstanding throwbacks to and resurgences of physical media in commercial and personal contexts. Music libraries are challenged with the conflicting responsibilities of maintaining legacy format materials that are not digitally available, continuing to collect physical resources that are not available either digitally or through institutional streaming subscriptions, and acquiring born-digital and digitized resources. They must also reconcile these responsibilities with the fact that many streaming A/V resources are freely available to individual consumers. In an era of dwindling resources and appreciation for curated music collections, how will libraries ensure that their A/V resources, in all formats, remain relevant to current and future users? This paper presents the results of an A/V usage survey administered to affiliates of the University of Alberta’s Music Department to learn about the attitudes, preferences and experiences of music library users’ practises for accessing recorded music.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCAML Review / Revue de l ACBMSame topicDiverse Musicological StudiesFrench-language works237,207