MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044561840 · doi:10.1177/0276237415569984

Similarity Indices for 500 Classical Music Composers

2015· article· en· W2044561840 on OpenAlexaff
Charles H. Smith, Patrick Georges

Bibliographic record

VenueEmpirical Studies of the Arts · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Ranking (information retrieval)Association (psychology)Period (music)Variation (astronomy)PsychologyMusicalClassical musicCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAestheticsArtLiteratureImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent article the authors inferred classical composer similarities on the basis of their common and distinct personal (individual) musical influences. In this paper, the authors examine how much, if any, additional explanation can be added when ‘ecological’ measures (i.e., other characteristics such as time period, geographical location, school association, instrumentation emphases, etc.) are also taken into account. Although the two methods do not generate identical similarities rankings, their combination does provide, arguably, an improved system of ranking.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.087 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmpirical Studies of the ArtsSame topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207