MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1044682917 · doi:10.1007/s10824-018-9320-x

The geography of music preferences

2018· article· en· W1044682917 on OpenAlexaff
Charlotta Mellander, Richard Florida, Peter J. Rentfrow, Jeff Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cultural Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Cultural Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsVariation (astronomy)MusicalMetropolitan areaBivariate analysisPropositionRace (biology)PreferenceSociologyGeographic variationEconomic geographySocial scienceGeographyPolitical scienceEconomicsDemographyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable attention has been paid to America’s political and economic divides. These divides revolve around class and location, with more affluent, more educated and denser places leaning more open-minded and liberal and less affluent, less educated and less dense places leaning more conservative. We contend that such divides are also reflected and reinforced by preferences, attitudes and predispositions for culture. More specifically we argue that Americans’ preferences for music will reflect dimensions of these political and economic divides. To test this proposition, our research examines the geographic variation of five key categories of music preferences across 95 of the largest US metropolitan areas. We use factor analysis to identify and map geographic variation of musical preferences, and we use both bivariate correlation analyses and regression analysis to examine the associations between metro-level musical preferences and key economic, demographic, political, and psychological variables. We find that musical preferences generally reflect and reinforce America’s broader economic and political divides.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cultural EconomicsSame topicSocial and Cultural DynamicsFrench-language works237,207