MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296208940 · doi:10.1017/s135577182200036x

Experiencing Sound Installations: A conceptual framework

2022· article· en· W4296208940 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganised Sound · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSound (geography)Visitor patternTaxonomy (biology)Conceptual frameworkDocumentationComputer scienceModalitiesSociologyAcousticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a conceptual framework for describing and documenting sound installations from a visitor’s point of view. In the form of a taxonomy, the framework includes four complementary perspectives: sound sources, sound design approaches, visiting modalities and visual aspects. Its elaboration was informed by a review of contemporary sound installations in Quebec as well as a literature review on conceptual and theoretical frameworks on sound art and sound installations. Compared with existing frameworks, the taxonomy is useful for describing and comparing sound installations across meaningful perspectives from a visitor’s stance. To illustrate the potential benefits of the taxonomy and the diversity of installations it can portray, we provide a comparative analysis of four contemporary sound installations from different perspectives. We conclude with the use of this taxonomy for documentation purposes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1170.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.230 · 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