MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001529747 · doi:10.1525/mp.2010.28.2.195

Musical Enculturation in Preschool Children: Acquisition of Key and Harmonic Knowledge

2010· article· en· W2001529747 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen A. Corrigall, Laurel J. Trainor

Bibliographic record

VenueMusic Perception An Interdisciplinary Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChord (peer-to-peer)Harmony (color)EnculturationPsychologyMusicalPerceptionKey (lock)Harmony (Music)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMusic perceptionCommunicationComputer sciencePedagogyLiteratureArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even adults without formal music training have implicit musical knowledge that they have acquired through day-to-day exposure to the music of their culture. Two of the more sophisticated musical abilities to develop in childhood are knowledge of key membership (which notes belong in a key) and harmony (chords and chord progressions). Previous research suggests sensitivity to key membership by 4 or 5 years, but provides no behavioral evidence of harmony perception until 6 or 7. Thus, we examined knowledge of key membership and harmony in 4- and 5-year-old children using a simple task and a familiar song. In line with previous research, we found that even the youngest children had acquired key membership. Furthermore, even 4-year-olds demonstrated some knowledge of Western harmony, which continued to develop between 4 and 5 years of age. In sum, our results indicate that harmony perception begins to develop earlier than has been previously suggested.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations118
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusic Perception An Interdisciplinary JournalSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207