Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the maturing of sound studies, and its intersection with critical studies, more attention is being given to the Anglo-Euro-centric and hegemonic legacy of acoustic ecology, as well as the cultural dimensions of sound studies. Discord between the practice of sound inquiry and sound ethnography has thus ensued, signaling the need to reexamine language and concept limitations, long-standing methods, approaches, and assumptions embedded in sonic research. In this paper we question the colonial foundations of sound studies in relation to researcher positionality and the conflicted task of attempting decoloniality from within the colonial institution that is academia. Beginning with a vignette, we position ourselves at the intersections of the discourse of coloniality and empire, and ask how sound studies, and indeed our own scholarship, mobilizes structures of power. Then we review major strands of decolonial scholarship within Canada and from key Latin American theorists, in relation to Canadian sound studies. And lastly, we offer what we call a speculative sonic framework for decolonial praxis: a set of suggestions for researchers that starts with the experiential more broadly, and the sonic more specifically, to mobilize decolonial praxis at the core of the research design.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".