MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056322157

Form Follows Sound: Designing For Sound Awareness

2018· article· en· W7056322157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoundscapePerceptionSound (geography)Active listeningVisualizationRepresentation (politics)Sound designFocus (optics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sound is a prominent feature of our urban environment, affecting us in many ways. Studies show that sound levels in cities are increasing every year. Considering the fact that our well-being is closely related to everyday sound, there is an apparent interconnection between them. Active listening to the surrounding acoustic environment offers the ability to appreciate sounds and articulate auditory needs having an impact on our well-being. Being aware of sound and expressing what we want to hear can lead to tangible transformation and change in our urban acoustic environment and space.\nThis thesis explores the potential of sound visualization and the representation of auditory information as a means of enhancing perception about urban sounds in our daily interactions. Through practice-based design research, studies in sound and music visualization with a focus on perception of shapes and semiotics, the main body of this work intends to gain insights into sound perception and its potential relationship with visual form. This research led to the creation of ‘Right Hear’, a map depicting the evolving soundscapes of Vancouver. ‘Right Hear’ aims to invite users to explore their own acoustic sense of place and become aware of the urban sounds by offering the ability to simultaneously listen and see sounds on a visual map. In parallel with this, the body of this work led to a series of exercises in the notation of sound and translation of graphic scores that looks into the ways that people from diverse fields of practice perceive, translate and respond to abstract shapes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207