Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on music perception has revealed numerous parallels between infants and adults, but these findings have had little influence on adult research. Studies of pitch memory in infants, children, and adults are presented to illustrate potential gains from a developmental approach. Although the prevailing wisdom is that absolute pitch processing dominates in early life until it is supplanted by relative pitch processing, recent research offers no support for that view. After a week of exposure to English folk melodies, infants remember the melodies, but they do not distinguish the original versions from transposed versions. Relative pitch processing dominates later on, but it does not occur at the expense of absolute pitch processing. For example, adults can identify the pitch level of familiar musical recordings in the context of foils that are pitch shifted by one or two semitones. Children 5-9 years of age can identify the pitch level of familiar recordings when the foils are pitch shifted by two semitones but not by one semitone. By contrast, Japanese children are successful in the context of one-semitone shifts. In short, a developmental approach can provide insights of comparable importance on many issues in music cognition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".