Disambiguating Music Emotion Using Software Agents.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Annotating music poses a cognitive load on listeners and this potentially interferes with the emotions being reported. One solution is to let software agents learn to make the annotator’s task easier and more efficient. Emo is a music annotation prototype that combines inputs from both human and software agents to better study human listening. A compositional theory of musical meaning provides the overall heuristics for the annotation process, with the listener drawing upon different influences such as acoustics, lyrics and cultural metadata to focus on a specific musical mood. Software agents track the way these choices are made from the influences available. A functional theory of human emotion provides the basis for introducing necessary bias into the machine learning agents. Conflicting positive and negative emotions can be separated on the basis of their different function (reward-approach and threat-avoidance) or dysfunction (psychotic). Negative emotions have strong ambiguity and these are the focus of the experiment. The results of mining psychological features of lyrics are promising, recognisable in terms of common sense ideas of emotion and in terms of accuracy. Further ideas for deploying agents in this model of music annotation are presented.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it