MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380926085 · doi:10.3138/ctr.129.003

Electric Sound: Collective Creation and Sound Design

2007· article· en· W4380926085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Hudgins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSound (geography)NarrativeSound designVisual artsContext (archaeology)Active listeningMovement (music)Sound systemArtAestheticsHistoryLiteratureSociologyAcousticsCommunicationArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sound design at Electric Company takes place in the context of the collective creation process that has been associated with many of the company’s works. It is not unusual for people to bring music on the first day of creation work, and since our process tends to follow the creative impulses of the group, listening and reflecting on pieces of music or sound elements as a company can quickly coalesce the larger elements and ideas of a project. Our first play, Brilliant! incorporated pieces by Bartok, Stravinsky and Britten in the earliest writing stages, during scenes that suggested movement and emotional arc. Much of that early design exists a decade later in the ongoing remounts of the play. We worked many physical sequences set to music in theatricalizing the relationship between the famous inventor Tesla and the New York socialite friends Robert and Katherine. Eventually, these scenes fell away as the script evolved, but not until they had served their purpose of informing us as writers/actors/designers of nature of the narrative we were portraying.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.021
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207