Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soundscape' is a word created by the Canadian composer, Raymond Murray Schafer (1933-) in the 1960s, obviously based on the word 'landscape'. Since then, the word has caught on and the concept has been studied in various kinds of academic fields such as musicology, acoustics, architecture, sociology, geography, and so on. It is also used in our daily lives concerning problems to do with the auditory environment. In Schafer's original idea, 'soundscape' was not really an object around us, but a 'heard' environment, which implies the subjectivity of a human agent. But it has often confused researchers, especially geographers, who in most cases have considered landscape as objective reality. The discussion continues, with some saying soundscape is an environment and others saying it always includes our way of hearing the sound. On the other hand, in the current trend in landscape studies in Japan, as an interdisciplinary field, 'landscape' (keikan) is clearly understood as an object while 'view' (fuˆkei) is seen as a more subjective interpretation. This could give good suggestion to Japanese geographers if they would like to contribute more to the activities and studies of the Soundscape Association of Japan: a new step in terminology needs to be taken first, making a clear distinction between 'soundscape' as an object and, say, 'sonic view', which can imply our way of hearing. Of course, it is not simply a problem of terminology but also one of philosophy itself. Further discussion seems to be required to establish the philosophy of soundscape.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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".