In the beginning: A brief history of infant music perception
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
The study of infant music perception began in the 1970s—a time when young infants were considered incapable of holistic processing of auditory sequences. These limitations were reconsidered with the demonstration of infants’ configural processing of pitch and timing patterns, which presaged the vibrant field of study that unfolded over subsequent decades. The 1980s revealed the salience of melodic contour for infants as well as adult-like processing of pitch and timing patterns. The 1990s shed new light on intervals and scales, uncovering situations in which infant listeners outperformed their adult counterparts. Scholars in the new millennium have documented a number of factors that influence rhythm perception in infancy, including incidental exposure to music and the experience of movement during music listening. In addition, brain-based measures are shedding light on the musical sensitivities of newborn infants. In sum, the conception of infants vis-à-vis music has changed substantially over the past four decades. Moreover, research in this realm is influencing ongoing debate about the nature and origins of music.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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