MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042645344 · doi:10.1162/comj.2008.32.1.60

Feature Set Patterns in Music

2008· article· en· W2042645344 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Darrell Conklin, Mathieu Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Music Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCity, University of LondonFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pattern discovery is an important part of computational music-processing systems. The discovery of patterns repeated within a single piece is an important step to segmentation according to thematic structures (Ruwet 1966). Patterns found within a few works may be signatures that can be instantiated for style emulation of novel musical material (Cope 1991; Rowe 1993) and can reveal a deep similarity in musical material. Patterns that are conserved across many pieces in a large corpus can represent structural building blocks and used for comparative style analysis and music genre recognition (Huron 2001; Conklin and Anagnostopoulou 2001; Lin etal. 2004). Pattern discovery methods can be discussed according to the expressiveness of patterns in particular, the levels of abstraction permitted by pattern components. Many approaches are restricted to a representation in which every pattern component is described using the same musical attribute: pitch, duration, interval, or fixed combinations of these (e.g., linked interval/duration, etc.). In these approaches, an event has only one possible representation, and therefore patterns can be efficiently found using general string algorithms (Gusfield 1997) after transforming the corpus to strings of attribute values. Recent methods have considered whether this restriction can be relaxed by allowing patterns with heterogeneous components and subsumption relations among possible pattern components (Lartillot 2004; Cambouropoulos et al. 2005; Conklin and Bergeron 2007). The need for such patterns can be motivated with a few melodic fragments (see Figure 1 ) from the music of the famous twentieth-century French singer and songwriter Georges Brassens (1921-1981). In both pairs of fragments, the description of events by melodic interval or melodic contour alone is inadequate. Though the fragments within each pair have a common duration pattern, there is no melodic interval pattern that spans the complete fragments, though some events do have conserved melodic intervals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Music JournalSame topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207