On mapping as a technoscientific practice in digital musical instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides historical context for the emergence of ‘mapping’ as a key conceptual metaphor in the context of digital musical instrument (DMI) design and use. In addition to a consideration of different technical implementations, we offer a critical assessment of the tendency to over-generalise mapping as a universal model for both building instruments and analysing them in retrospect. This reification of mapping as a design model, as well as of the dimension spaces of sound and gesture being mapped, is read through a media-theoretical lens, drawing on recent work from interface studies to show how mapping actively constructs ideological relationships between performers and underlying systems of musical representation. While acknowledging the practical utility of traditional formulations of mapping in DMIs, we focus on issues arising from their over-generalisation, including the sometimes-misleading impression of representational stability, the suitability of spatial metaphors, and the assumption of unidirectionality and temporal stasis. In closing, the article explores alternatives based on a relational approach to mapping as an ‘intra-active’ process that is bidirectional at every step, fluid in its distinction of categories, and more dynamic across its variegated temporalities.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".