Przez zabawę ku źródłom dźwięków — przyczynek do badań instalacji dźwiękowych w twórczości Lidii Zielińskiej
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Through Play to Sound Sources—A Contribution to Research ofLidia Zielińska’s Sound Installations Sound installations have been present in Polish music since the 1960s when the first “spatial-musical compositions” were presented by Zygmunt Krauze. His innovative activities hadn’t found followers in the Polish musical community for quite a while, but in the 1980s composers started to be more and more interested in multimedia forms engaging recipients into an active participation. Among these artists was Lidia Zielińska—a composer willingly exploring the sonoristic possibilities of both traditional instruments and electroacoustic ones. A big importance into the formation of her individual composition language was getting familiar with Raymond Murray Schafer’s ideas, meetings with this Canadian composer and promoting his thought into the polish community. An important current of her creative activities were also the actions focused on children. All these mentioned aspects can be seen in her installations that—according to the assumptions of Łukasz Guzek, a researcher of 20 th and 21 st -century art—inextricably combine the questions of space and presence. In terms of sound, these projects and not-installation Zielińska’s creations merge into a coherent whole: a space to explore problems related to sound’s essence and sources, as well as acoustic ecology. This article describes in more detail the following sound installations of Lidia Zielińska, including their composition assumptions and way of realizing the elements characterising the installation forms: Muzyka potencjalna [nr 1]. Spiskowa teoria dźwięku (1988), Projekt dla końca korytarza (1994), Alles gab’s schon mal/Wszystko już było (2006), Lutosławski DIY (2013), Plasterki muzyki (2013), Looks Chinese, Sounds Polish (2013) and Polish Sonorities (2014).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".