MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964667849 · doi:10.3406/psy.2001.29569

Normes pour un corpus musical

2001· article· en· W1964667849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathalie Ehrlé, Séverine Samson, Isabelle Peretz

Bibliographic record

VenueL’Année psychologique · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelodyMusicalPsychologyNormativeSet (abstract data type)LinguisticsCognitive psychologyArtComputer scienceVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary : Norms for a musical corpus. In this article, we present norms for a standardized set of 144 melodie excerpts. The melodies have been standardized on four variables corresponding to familiarity, verbal evocations, musical categories (vocal or instrumental) and age of acquisition. For this purpose, estimations were obtained in 120 French university students. The results show that musical excerpts can be submitted to psychometric measures similar to normative measures obtained for other stimuli. Except for the age of acquisition which was only determined for a limited number of excepts, the other variables such as familiarity, musical category as well as verbal responses associated to each musical except were identified. The present results extend data obtained in a previous investigation with the same set of melodies infrench speaking subjectsfrom Quebec by Peretz et her colleagues (1995). This study provides a standardized set of melodies available for research in the psychology of music. Key words : norms, music, familiarity, verbal associations.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL’Année psychologiqueSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207