MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415968089 · doi:10.1121/2.0002189

Exploring sound installation reactivity: Acoustic niches in public space

2025· article· en· W4415968089 on OpenAlexaff
Valérian Fraisse, Nadine Schütz, Coralie Vincent, Marcelo M. Wanderley, Catherine Guastavino, Nicolas Misdariis

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSound (geography)Public spaceSpace (punctuation)Key (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the soundscape approach gains increased research attention, it remains underexplored in urban design and sound art.Sound installations in public spaces exist within dynamic acoustic environments, where the interplay between pre-existing sounds and introduced artistic elements influences the auditory experience in complex ways.Yet, there is a lack of tools and methods to evaluate their perceptual impact and inform artistic practice.The present work is part of a research-creation collaboration on Niches Acoustiques, a permanent sound installation designed by sound artist Nadine Schtz for a public square in Paris.The installation explores the acoustic niche hypothesis by adapting its sonic content in reaction to fluctuations in the acoustic environment.We report on a laboratory study focusing on the installation's reactivity, following up an initial study that linked composition strategies to soundscape perception.Specifically, we present the implementation of variations in the installation's responsivenesssuch as amplifying, attenuating, or transforming its content -in reaction to the ambient conditions.These variations serve as a framework for evaluating the impact of reactivity across different listening scenarios.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207