MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410449636 · doi:10.1017/s1355771825000093

Sensory Experience of Sound Installation Art and Documentation: Comparison across fields of expertise

2025· article· en· W4410449636 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Boutard, Catherine Guastavino, Valérian Fraisse

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganised Sound · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
KeywordsDocumentationSound (geography)Computer scienceVisual artsSensory systemHuman–computer interactionAestheticsMultimediaAcousticsPsychologyArtCognitive psychologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The documentation of sound art installation has received scant research attention. This ARTICLE investigates the sensory experience of spatial audio recordings of two sound art installations: Écosystème(s) by Estelle Schorpp and Générateur Stochastique by Jean-Pierre Gauthier. Interactive listening sessions WERE CONDUCTED with participants from different fields of expertise: sound artists, sound engineers, new media and sound art curators, and new media and sound art conservators. Listening sessions were followed by semi-structured interviews questioning the selection of significant positions in time and space in the recordings. The analysis revealed a broad range of listening strategies which expand the literature on documentation frameworks. This research shows the potential for methodologically including the sensory experience in the documentation of sound art installations and discusses the use of spatial recording as a tool for the specification of documentation in a multi-expertise context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganised SoundSame topicAesthetic Perception and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207