MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996811008 · doi:10.1386/jmte.2.2-3.113_1

Models of interaction: performance strategies in works for piano and live electronics

2009· article· en· W1996811008 on OpenAlex
Xenia Pestova

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Music Technology and Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepertoireSet (abstract data type)Performance practicePianoPerforming artsElectronicsPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceHuman–computer interactionMultimediaEngineeringMusicalArtificial intelligenceVisual artsArtElectrical engineeringLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While a considerable amount of literature and pedagogical repertoire already address the challenges of performance practice in works for instruments and fixed media, this body of knowledge largely excludes approaches to mixed works with interactive live electronics. Working with live electronics requires additional skills from the performer, and presents a different set of problems and solutions. As the repertoire grows, performers, composers and music educators must become acquainted with this emerging practice. In this article, the author introduces the concept of models of interaction in order to examine several works for piano and live electronics from the performance practice perspective. The text is illustrated with examples from classic and recent repertoire.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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