MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083220765 · doi:10.1525/mp.2012.30.2.147

The Vocal Generosity Effect: How Bad Can Your Singing Be?

2012· article· en· W2083220765 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 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelodyTimbreMistuningGenerositySingingTone (literature)ViolinPsychologyContext (archaeology)Speech recognitionAcousticsAudiologyComputer scienceLinguisticsArtPhilosophyMusicalHistoryPhysicsVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

prior work indicates that listeners may be more likely to call a note in-tune when it is sung than when it is in another timbre. The current study seeks to confirm whether this vocal generosity effect generalizes to melodies. Musicians and nonmusicians listened to pairs of single tones and scale-based melodies performed with the voice or the violin. The final note was varied in how well it was tuned to the prior context, and for each example, listeners judged whether the final note was intune or not. A strong vocal generosity effect was found for musicians and nonmusicians in both melodic and single tone conditions – a higher degree of mistuning was necessary for listeners to decide that sung tones were out-of-tune compared with violin notes. These results confirm the role of timbre in tuning judgments, and help explain why singers are typically less well-tuned than instrumentalists in performance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.275 · 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