MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191612417 · doi:10.1162/comj_a_00563

Construction and Performance Applications of an Augmented Violin: TRAVIS II

2020· article· en· W3191612417 on OpenAlexaff
Chantelle Ko, Lora Oehlberg

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Music Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViolinImprovisationComputer scienceGesturePerforming artsString (physics)AcousticsHuman–computer interactionArtArtificial intelligenceVisual artsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present the second iteration of a Touch-Responsive Augmented Violin Interface System, called TRAVIS II, and two compositions that demonstrate its expressivity. TRAVIS II is an augmented acoustic violin with touch sensors integrated into its 3-D printed fingerboard that track left-hand finger gestures in real time. The fingerboard has four strips of conductive PLA filament that produce an electric signal when fingers press down on each string. Although these sensors are physically robust, they are mechanically assembled and thus easy to replace if damaged. The performer can also trigger presets via four sensors attached to the body of the violin. The instrument is completely wireless, giving the performer the freedom to move throughout the performance space. Although the sensing fingerboard is installed in place of the traditional fingerboard, all other electronics can be removed from the augmented instrument, maintaining the aesthetics of a traditional violin. Our design allows violinists to naturally create music for interactive performance and improvisation without requiring new instrumental techniques. The first author composed two compositions to highlight TRAVIS II: “Dream State” and “Kindred Dichotomy.” Both of these compositions involve improvisation in their creative process and include interactive visuals. In this article we describe the design of the instrument, experiments leading to the sensing fingerboard, performative applications of the instrument, and compositional considerations for the resultant pieces.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Music JournalSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207