Sound Acts, Part 2: Copresen(t/c)ing Vibration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear readers, if you are just tuning in to this ongoing jam session, we invite you to get (un)settled and listen to the frequencies tapped herein.You can always replay our opening salvo to sound and performance studies in Sound Acts, Part I or immerse yourself in the melodic lines of argument put forth in this second issue.Since the last issue, there have been many changes: births, deaths, continued and new pandemics of systemic racism, conservative backlashes against critical race theory, the war in Ukraine, and the continued violent assault on reproductive justice and LGBTQ+ lives.The heightened vulnerability of bodies laid bare by the pandemic seems ironically to have produced an insistence on the manifold vulnerability of those always already in the crosshairs of power.This is the calculated effect of a neoliberal society charging full speed ahead toward "normalcy," erasing white supremacy's systemic realities (before anyone can notice).In the first issue, we claimed that vibrating bodies perform and that the sonic is a constellation of acts.The digital presence of our current historical moment calls us to realize that sound acts-the performance of vibration-are social and therefore exist under specific material conditions.As the pandemic moved forward and our modes of coming together shifted online, we experienced time, distance, sound, and sociality differently.We came to understand the incredible potentiality of live digital performance and what it means to create in mediated real-time.Namely, as three friends and coeditors who have worked solely over Zoom in the past two-plus years, we understand at a molecular level that physical presence is not inherently more intimate than mediated copresence.We also came together with the authors of this two-part special issue on Zoom during the American Studies Association conference in November 2021.We have thus spent an enormous amount of time socially distanced and (by technical necessity) in a single stream sound.Yet we must acknowledge that even when live and copresent, what digital performances mediate is the palpable, cavernous space and time between bodies.On Zoom, we cannot yet produce live, synchronous musical theatre.It is not yet possible to speak simultaneously or in chorus with others, per a script's direction.We can't even sync up the familiar refrains of "Happy Birthday" without a delay, a lag, an echo of time that signals the space/time between our gathered, live, and copresent bodies.We are reminded of Masi Asare's podcast, "Voicing Across Distance," in which she explores how technology has altered our perceptions of time, sound, and distance as we experience sonic glitches, sonic tics, and lag times on Zoom.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
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".