MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106330465 · doi:10.1177/102986490701100203

Performance Analysis and Chopin's Mazurkas

2007· article· en· W2106330465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueMusicae Scientiae · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjunction (astronomy)RhythmPsychologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceHistoryAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reporting on work carried out in conjunction with Andrew Earis and Craig Sapp, this paper introduces recently developed approaches to the analysis of recorded music, illustrating them in terms of selected Chopin mazurkas. Topics covered include the stylistic characterisation and aesthetic values of Paderewski's playing of Op. 17 No. 4, contrasted with performances from the last quarter of the twentieth century, as well as relationships between different pianists' interpretations of Op. 68 No. 3. A possible performance genealogy of performances of the latter is proposed, in which recordings by Rubinstein and Cortot play a key role, while clustering based on Pearson correlation of tempo data yields relationships supported in one instance by documented teacher/pupil relationships. Representing the early outcomes of a more extended research project, these findings are encouraging in that it appears possible to draw meaningful conclusions from the consideration only of tempo data. The current phase of the project is also working with rhythmic and dynamic data, which should significantly enhance the potential for objective modelling of musically meaningful relationships.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations37
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusicae ScientiaeSame topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207