Information from sound: exploring sounds and listening in information practices research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. This conceptual paper discusses the possibilities for expanding research around sounds/listening and sound-related practices in information research to further understandings of embodied/sensory information practices and attend to a greater diversity of information experiences and ways of knowing. Method/Analysis. The growth of research related to broad conceptualisations of sound and listening and the use of information from sound in knowledge production across many fields is discussed. Some challenges faced by that research and gaps in existing sound-related information practices research are noted. Results. Sound research in other fields faces issues around the management, interpretation, and contextualisation of sound-related data, and little is understood about the practices of sound recordists. Some information practices-related research has highlighted the complexity of interactions with sounds and related technologies and explored interactions with oral and music information sources. However, experiences and perceptions around seeking, creating, and using information from sounds lack in-depth study. Conclusion. The value of further information practices research related to sound is suggested: to expand embodied/sensory information research, to engage with the broad range of sonic skills and experiences, to further holistic examinations of information interactions, and to address information-related problems and research gaps in sound-focused research from other fields.
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 | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.066 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".