Investigating soundscape affordances through activity appropriateness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central to the concept of soundscape is the understanding of the acoustic environment in context. Previous research indicates that people understand soundscapes through their potential for activities. One way to look at activities is through the concept of affordances - defined as the actionable properties of an object. In this study, the object is a location and time in the city. Fifteen participants listened to stereo recordings of 8 outdoor sites in Paris and Montreal. In each trial, they evaluated on a continuous scale how appropriate the soundscapes were for a given activity. Four activities were considered and presented in random order: studying for an exam, meeting up with a friend, riding a bike and relaxing. Participants justified their ratings in free-format comments. A 8(Soundscapes) x 4(Activities) factorial ANOVAs revealed significant effects of Soundscape and Activities and Soundscape*Activities on appropriateness ratings. Certain soundscapes were found to accommodate specific activities only while others were found to potentially accommodate all activities or none (prominent mechanical/traffic noise.) We also analyzed comments to further understand how participants envision utilizing the soundscape/environment and attribute meanings to the various sounds present.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".