Sonic stories, sensory ethnography, and listening with an injured mind
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
Brain injuries transform how one’s world sounds. What follows are two sonic stories. These short audio compositions are designed to transport the listener into the pre- and post-brain injury sensory environment—a textured and embodied landscape that non-injured minded individuals, including most clinicians, have little understanding of. This lack of understanding is a consequence of the sorts of neurological research done in the scientific traditions which tend to leave certain forms of sensory phenomena unstudied and exclude patients’ voices. We draw inspiration from Rachel Kolb’s (2017) first-person account of hearing music for the first time after getting cochlear implants. She writes that music jolted her core in ways she could not explain. Instead of “Can you hear the music?”, she prefers to be asked, “What does music feel like to you?” Stemming from the perspectives of two individuals that live with brain injuries (identified here as Story A and Story B ), these sonic stories ask what does a brain injury sound like?
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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