Notice bibliographique
Résumé
1. IntroductionAbsolute pitch is a distinct cognitive ability possessed a minority of musicians, that refers to the unique capacity of recognizing and naming the pitch of given sounds without the use of an external reference pitch (Takeuchi & Hulse, 1993; Bermudez & Zatorre, 2009; Miyazaki & Ogawa, 2006; Deutsch et al, 2006; Baharloo et al, 1998; Gregersen et al, 1999; Brown et al, 2003; Pamcutt & Levitin, 1999; Deutsch, 2002; Levitin & Zatorre, 2003). Other definitions indicate the idea of quickly and accurately labeling tonal stimuli on the basis of their fundamental frequencies (without the use of a reference tone) (Ross et al, 2004, p. 1793).When discussing pitch, it is important to differentiate it from the relative pitch. This is why some definitions of pitch need to include this aspect: absolute pitch is the rare ability to name a music tone correctly without comparison to one (Cohen & Baird, 1990, p. 31). Relative pitch refers to the ability to recognize the relationships between musical notes. A person relying on relative pitch will name certain tones only if given a reference musical note and calculating the pitch ratios between the reference note and the new one. A musician with pitch will perceive and name the notes individually, without relating them to one another. The ability to judge one note in relation to another (relative pitch) is a basic musical skill intended to be acquired most of the music education programs. Excellent relative pitch is common among musicians, can be developed through ear training exercises and is very important in musical practice.Another essential facet of pitch is its automatic character. Those who have pitch claim that identifying pitches is effortless and immediate and that they make no special effort or conscious strategy in naming the tones Some authors (Pamcutt & Levitin, 1999) even suggest a shortcoming associated to pitch. Referring to people with pitch, the two Canadian researchers imply that their constant awareness of musical pitch labels can detract from their enjoyment of music. Many times musicians with pitch may complain: don't hear melodies, I hear pitch names passing by (Pamcutt & Levitin, 1999, p. 12). The capacity to name notes with a minimum of deliberation and in a very short time is often used in unraveling real pitch owners from musicians with very good relative pitch who sometimes memorize the frequency of one or two musical notes.2. Prevalence of pitchThe proportion of pitch possessors is roughly estimated to be less than one to 1500 or even one to 10000 in the general population (Miyazaki & Ogawa, 2006). Among musicians, the estimated proportion of pitch possessors varies from 3.4% to about 15%, or sometimes to 40% (Miyazaki & Ogawa, 2006; Pamcutt & Levitin, 1999). Gregersen and collaborators (Gregersen et al, 1999) observed large variations in pitch prevalence among music student populations: conservatory (24.6%), university-based school of music (7.3%), or liberal arts/state university music program (4.7%).Absolute pitch is more prevalent among blind musicians, with a proportion of 57% (Hamilton et al, 2004). The finding was interpreted as a result of specific neurological features related to the increased variability of planum temporale asymmetry among blind pitch musicians. The notion that cross-modal plasticity involving the occipital cortex may provide an additional neural substrate for the development of pitch in the blind is an intriguing hypothesis that merits further investigation.Another interesting aspect about pitch is its curiously high prevalence among Asian musicians. The fact has been explained in various ways. Gregersen and his colleagues (Gregersen et al, 1999) found a significant correlation between pitch and the age at which and individual first began playing music. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».