Composing, recomposing, and decomposing with soundscapes
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
This chapter suggests that soundwalking, a seemingly trivial combination of walking and listening, is a complex activity that always comprises and entails some form of composition, recomposition, and decomposition. Building on the term soundwalk composition, I suggest that when soundwalking, we are traversing to some degree already composed territories and soundscapes. Moreover, in order to unfold and be conducive to certain experiences, those territories (and our mobility within them) neccesitate decomposition of other environmental, geological, and cultural realms and, consequently, their soundscapes. In the proposed, expanded and critically revised approach to soundwalking, what we walk through and listen is not merely the here and now but a much wider spatio-temporal territory that spans the past (even deep, geological time) and extends into the unknown future(s). Combining diverse technological and conceptual modes of field recording, mediating, and broadcasting precomposed material and sounds from the immediate vicinity, soundwalking compositions presented in this chapter bring attention to particular locations: Vancouver's intertidal zones and Sweden's most and least polluted lakes. While opening up to imperceptible aspects of those geographies, these pieces are simultaneously and, perhaps above all, exercises in (re-)composing one's ethical position within a mesh of scales, agencies, and temporalities that constitute each and every site. The chapter concludes with a series of propositions for how to engage in critical, careful, and caring forms of composing with soundscapes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it