Effects of Performer Attractiveness, Stage Behavior, and Dress on Evaluation of Children's Piano Performances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether selected nonmusical attributes of sixth-grade pianists would affect ratings of their performances. Twenty pianists (10 girl and 10 boys) were videotaped. They and their performances were rated by 123 musically trained evaluators. Members of the visual group viewed a videotape with the sound turned off. They rated pianists on appropriateness of dress, stage behavior, and physical attractiveness. These ratings were the basis for grouping students as being high or low on each of these three attributes. Audiovisual and audio group members rated musical performance on five test items. Results revealed support for the existence of a bias: although high pianists were rated higher than low pianists under the audio condition for all three attributes, the differences between them often were significantly greater under the audiovisual condition than under the audio-only condition. In addition, and unlike finding of earlier studies, videotaped performances were not rated higher than audiotaped performances. Also, female judges were more lenient than male judges. Finally, male and female pianists were affected differently by nonmusical attributes for about half of the test items.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".