Review of Barbara Lorenzkowski. 2010. Sounds of Ethnicity. Listening to German North America 1850–1914. Winnipeg:University of Manitoba Press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In her seminal work on the sound of German ethnicity in the Great Lakes\nregion in the six decades prior to World War I, Lorenzkowski adds an important\naural dimension to the historiography of German culture in North\nAmerica. By studying past sounds of rural Waterloo County, Ontario and\nindustrialized urban Buffalo, New York, she allows her readers to tune in to\nthe public and private worlds of German migrants and their self–declared\nleaders as they practiced and performed their ethnic consciousness in the\ntransnational borderland of the Great Lakes region.\nHow can our understanding of the past be deepened by the study of\nits sounds? Hearing is a process of perceiving the world and contributes to\nour daily acquisition of knowledge. “[K]nowing the world through sound,”\nas Bruce Smith suggests, “is fundamentally different from knowing the\nworld through vision” (2003:4). This notion can—and should—be applied\nto academic research; indeed, several disciplines, history included, have\nbeen experiencing a “sonic turn.” In Hearing History, sensory historian\nMark M. Smith writes about the increasing focus on the aural in historical\nresearch:“This intensification holds out to the prospect of helping to redirect\nin some profoundly important ways what is often the visually oriented\ndiscipline of history, a discipline replete with emphases on the search for ‘perspective’ and ‘focus’ through the ‘lens’ of evidence, one heavily, if often\nunthinkingly, indebted to the visualism of ‘Enlightenment’ thinking and\nways of understanding the word”.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".