MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W783160902

Looking at archival sound: enhancing the listening experience in audio archives

2012· article· en· W783160902 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J Wierciński, Annie Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningReading (process)Variety (cybernetics)PoetryContext (archaeology)Computer sciencePerspective (graphical)Sound (geography)MultimediaVisual artsLinguisticsPsychologyHistoryArtCommunicationArtificial intelligenceLiterature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What helps researchers listen in deep and engaged ways to sound recordings that are delivered on the Web? This paper considers how visual aspects of Web-based archives for poetry recordings can enhance the listening experience for users by providing more context and clarification that can help users better understand and use the recordings. Drawing from studies in a variety of disciplines that demonstrate that much of our learning is multimodal, the SpokenWeb project in Montreal, Canada is using digitized live recordings of a Montreal poetry reading series from 1965-1972, featuring performances by major North American poets to investigate the features that will be the most \nconducive to scholarly engagement with recorded poetry recitation and performance. Visual features such as tethering audio playback with a written transcript, sound visualization and including videos and images are discussed as means to enhance the listening experience in audio archives. While visual features will be discussed from the perspective of the SpokenWeb poetry project, many of the issues and recommendations will apply more broadly to audio archives in general, including those with both spoken word and musical content.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207