MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009919835 · doi:10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.3.333

Distinguishing between the Meanings of Music: When Background Music Affects Product Perceptions

2005· article· en· W2009919835 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

VenueJournal of Marketing Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionMeaning (existential)PerceptionContext (archaeology)PsychologyMusic and emotionMusicalMusic psychologyCognitive psychologyAestheticsComputer scienceMusicologyMusic historyArtVisual artsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Music theory distinguishes between two types of meanings that music can impart: (1) embodied meaning, which is purely hedonic, context independent, and based on the degree of stimulation the musical sound affords, and (2) referential meaning, which is context dependent and reflects networks of semantic-laden, external world concepts. Two studies investigate which (if either) of these background music meanings influence perceptions of an advertised product and when. Findings suggest that people who engage in nonintensive processing are insensitive to either type of meaning. However, more intensive processors base their perceptions on the music's referential meaning when ad message processing requires few resources, but they use the music's embodied meaning when such processing is relatively resource demanding.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.153 · 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