Sectional Versus Intact Evaluations of Four Versions of a Chopin Étude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine how evaluations of four intact performances of a Chopin étude (Op. 25, No. 9, Butterfly ), differing in quality, related to evaluations of each performance’s sections. We presented each performance as five excerpts: (a) opening phrase, (b) first half, (c) second half, (d) coda, and (e) intact. We then presented 10 of the 20 excerpts a second time to assess listener reliability. Results revealed an interaction between performer and ratings: Ratings of intact performances were significantly higher than were ratings of component sections for the two best performances. For the other two performances, however, ratings of intact excerpts were significantly lower than ratings of component sections. Nonsignificant factors were sections and listener background. Data indicate that ratings of longer sections (first and second halves) were more closely tied to intact performance ratings than were shorter sections (opening phrase and coda). Correlational data revealed that piano majors were marginally more reliable than nonpiano majors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".