MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is there potential for learning in amusia? A study of the effect of singing intervention in congenital amusia

2012· article· en· W1833636040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan E. Anderson, Evangelos Himonides, Karen Wise, Graham Welch, Lauren Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsPsychologyAudiologySingingIntervention (counseling)MedicinePsychiatryAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital amusia is a neurodevelopmental disorder of musical perception and production. Much research has focused on characterizing the deficits within this special population; however, it is also important from both a psychological and educational perspective to determine which aspects of the disorder may be subject to change because this will also constrain theorizing about the nature of the disorder, as well as facilitating possible future remediation programs. In this small-scale study, a professional singing teacher used a broad-brush intervention approach with five individuals diagnosed with congenital amusia. The compensatory elements were designed to enhance vocal efficiency and health, singing technique, musical understanding, pitch perception, and production. Improvements were observed in most individuals in perception, indexed via the Montreal Battery for the Evaluation of Amusia scale subtest and in the vocal performance of familiar songs. The workshop setting gave a unique opportunity for observation and discussion to inform further investigations of this disorder.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207