MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021370281 · doi:10.1525/mp.2011.29.2.185

Music Lessons, Emotional Intelligence, and IQ

2011· article· en· W2021370281 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
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional intelligencePsychologyNonverbal communicationTest (biology)Intelligence quotientDevelopmental psychologyVerbal reasoningCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

musically trained and untrained participants were administered tests of emotional intelligence and IQ. As in previous research, trained participants scored higher than untrained participants on the IQ Composite score and on its Verbal and Nonverbal subtests. The advantage for the trained group on the Composite score and on the Nonverbal subtest was evident even when gender, parents' education, family income, and first language were held constant. The groups performed similarly, however, on the test of emotional intelligence, and scores on the IQ test were only weakly correlated with scores on the emotional intelligence test. The results imply that (1) associations between music lessons and nonmusical abilities are limited to intellectual abilities, and/or (2) associations between music lessons and emotional intelligence are not evident on visual- and/or text-based tests of emotional intelligence such as the one used here.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.002

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.210 · 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