The effects of various physical characteristics of high-level performers on adjudicators’ performance ratings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between physical attractiveness and performance ratings of high-level pianists. Eighteen of the 30 competitors who participated in the Eleventh Van Cliburn International Piano Competition were rated by undergraduate and graduate music students and faculty. Participants were divided into three groups who rated the performances under either audio, audiovisual, or visual-only conditions. Visual-only participants rated performers on physical attractiveness, dress, and stage behaviour. Results suggest that high-level pianists are not affected in the same way by the apparent attractiveness bias that has been found in studies of novice and college-level musicians. Performers rated low on behaviour received consistently higher performance scores than high behaviour performers regardless of treatment condition (audio or audiovisual). Performers who rated high on each of the visual components benefited from the audiovisual condition, as compared with the audio-only condition, on note accuracy, but not on five other measures of performance. Interactions between each visual component (attractiveness, dress, and behaviour) and gender of the rater raise questions about gender differences in the perception of attractiveness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".