MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006430088 · doi:10.1525/mp.2011.29.2.157

Music Training and Reading Readiness

2011· article· en· W2006430088 on OpenAlex

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

VenueMusic Perception An Interdisciplinary Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PsychologyAssociation (psychology)Music perceptionPhonological awarenessPerceptionCognitive psychologyAuditory perceptionCognitionMusic educationDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

several reports have noted significant associations among phonological awareness, early reading skills, and music perception skills in young children. We examined whether music processing skills differentially predicted reading performance in a broad age range of 69 children with and without formal music training. Pitch perception was correlated with phonological awareness, a finding consistent with the hypothesis that basic auditory processing skills underlie the association between music and reading abilities. Nevertheless, the correlation between music skills and reading skills was affected by the presence of formal music training: pitch discrimination predicted reading ability only in children without formal music training. Studies examining the association between music perception and reading (and perhaps other cognitive domains as well) should not ignore the factor of music training.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.176 · 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