The Effect of Singing Mode and Seating Arrangement on Choral Blend and Overall Choral Sound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is an examination of the effects of soloistic versus blended choral singing and random versus acoustic choral seating arrangements on evaluations of choral blend and overall choral sound. Thirty-seven choral conductors, 33 voice teachers, and 32 nonvocal musicians rated performances of four pieces by a choir of 22 voice majors. Eight choristers were recorded individually during choral performances and solo, and their vocal production was evaluated by 12 voice teachers. Choristers rated experimental conditions for vocal comfort and choral sound. Results indicated that choral conductors preferred blended singing over soloistic singing. No significant singing mode preference, however, was found in choral evaluations by voice teachers and nonvocal musicians. Voice teachers ranked individual vocal production in blended choral singing lower than in soloistic choral singing, and both choral singing modes lower than solo singing. Acoustic seating positively affected evaluations of choral performance, individual vocal production, and choristers' vocal comfort and choral sound ratings.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".