MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132370023 · doi:10.2466/pms.2000.91.3.973

The Emotional Importance of Key: Do Beatles Songs Written in Different Keys Convey Different Emotional Tones?

2000· article· en· W2132370023 on OpenAlex
Robert Whissell, Cynthia Whissell

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

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLyricsKey (lock)Character (mathematics)Tone (literature)PsychologyAffect (linguistics)LinguisticsCommunicationComputer scienceLiteratureArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lyrics from 155 songs written by the Lennon-McCartney team were scored using the Dictionary of Affect in Language. Resultant scores (pleasantness, activation, and imagery of words) were compared across key signatures using one way analyses of variance. Words from songs written in minor keys were less pleasant and less active than those from songs written in major keys. Words from songs written in the key of F scored extremely low on all three measures. Lyrics from the keys of C, D, and G were relatively active in tone. Results from Dictionary scoring were compared with assignments of character to keys made more than one century ago and with current musicians' opinions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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