MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992466751 · doi:10.1080/02699930302279

Mode and tempo relative contributions to “happy-sad” judgements in equitone melodies

2003· article· en· W1992466751 on OpenAlexaff
Lise Gagnon, Isabelle Peretz

Bibliographic record

VenueCognition & Emotion · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelodyPsychologySalience (neuroscience)Mode (computer interface)JudgementCognitive psychologySalientSet (abstract data type)Musical

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Judgement of emotion conveyed by music is determined notably by mode (major-minor) and tempo (fast-slow). This suggestion was examined using the same set of equitone melodies, in two experiments. Melodies were presented to nonmusicians who were required to judge whether the melodies sounded "happy" or "sad" on a 10-point scale. In order to assess the specific and relative contributions of mode and tempo to these emotional judgements, the melodies were manipulated so that the only verying characteristic was either the mode or the tempo in two "isolated" conditions. In two further conditions, mode and tempo manipulations were combined so that mode and tempo either converged towards the same emotion (Convergent condition) or suggested opposite emotions (Divergent condition). The results confirm that both mode and tempo determine the "happy-sad" judgements in isolation, with the tempo being more salient, even when tempo salience was adjusted. The findings further support the view that, in music, structural features that are emotionally meaningful are easy to isolate, and that music is an effective and reliable medium to study emotions.

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)0.014
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations262
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognition & EmotionSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207