Perceptual Tests of an Algorithm for Musical Key-Finding.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceiving the tonality of a musical passage is a fundamental aspect of the experience of hearing music. Models for determining tonality have thus occupied a central place in music cognition research. Three experiments investigated 1 well-known model of tonal determination: the Krumhansl-Schmuckler key-finding algorithm. In Experiment 1, listeners' percepts of tonality following short musical fragments derived from preludes by Bach and Chopin were compared with predictions of tonality produced by the algorithm; these predictions were very accurate for the Bach preludes but considerably less so for the Chopin preludes. Experiment 2 explored a subset of the Chopin preludes, finding that the algorithm could predict tonal percepts on a measure-by-measure basis. In Experiment 3, the algorithm predicted listeners' percepts of tonal movement throughout a complete Chopin prelude. These studies support the viability of the Krumhansl-Schmuckler key-finding algorithm as well as a model of listeners' tonal perceptions of musical passages.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".