Historical Development Process of World Soundscape Project and the Accomplishments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to have better understanding of the concept and meaning of soundscape, it is very important to consider entirely the objectives, activities, historical development processes and accomplishments of world soundscape project leading by R. Murray Schafer. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of this study is to inquire into the concrete development processes and practical activities of the soundscape in order to correspond to Schafer's conception of a tuning of the world. The establishment of WSP is based on noise pollution, listening attitudes and noisy music. Schafer formulated 5 types of item as a target, and wrote down concrete activities to achieve the goals. Especially, he devised the conceptual, educational, political and social strategies as the practical strategies of WSP. It is obtained various products by the activities of WSP from the planning starting year in 1969 to the stagnation period in 1979. That is, there are the social survey on noise-vancouver 1969, the book of noise, Okeanos, a study of community noise by-laws in canada 1972, the music of the environment, the vancouver soundscape, european sound diary, five village soundscapes, handbook for acoustic ecology and so on. The research activities of WSP arouse inspiration in many people interested in sound. Specially, it is emphasized the importance of increasing for their social roles in order to more actively improve and create the quality of sound environment. Also, it shows us the directions on how to lead our furture sound.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".