Effects of Excerpt Tempo and Duration on Musicians' Ratings of High-Level Piano Performances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine how judgments of solo performances recorded at an international piano competition might be affected by excerpt duration (20 versus 60 seconds) and tempo (slow versus fast). Musicians rated performances on six test items. Results indicated that piano majors rated slow excerpts higher than they rated fast excerpts, and that they rated slow excerpts higher than nonpiano majors rated either slow or fast excerpts; undergraduates rated long excerpts the same as or slightly higher than they did short excerpts, but graduate students and faculty rated long excerpts markedly higher than short excerpts; and undergraduate piano majors rated performances lower than did undergraduate nonpiano majors, but graduate piano majors and faculty rated performances higher than did graduate/faculty nonpiano majors. Also, accuracy items correlated with each other more highly than they did with other items, and judge ratings were higher for accuracy items than they were for other items. Finally, judge consistency was shown to be related to excerpt duration, excerpt tempo, instrumental major, and level of education. Results generally show that ratings taken after 60 seconds differed from ratings taken after 20 seconds, and that ratings provided evidence that judges were able to distinguish between different test items. November 23, 2004 April 27, 2005.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".