MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141783528 · doi:10.1177/2158244014547179

Themes of Lust and Love in Popular Music Lyrics From 1971 to 2011

2014· article· en· W2141783528 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

VenueSAGE Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLustLyricsTheme (computing)Human sexualityPopular musicPsychologyRomanceHeteronormativityMusicalLiteratureGender studiesArtSociologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explored themes related to sexual desire (lust) and romantic desire (love) in the lyrics of popular music over the past 40 years. We examined whether there have been changes in the prevalence of lust and love themes and changes in how these themes inter-relate in music lyrics over time. The study sample consisted of the top 40 songs of Billboard Year End Hot 100 single songs for every 5 years from 1971 to 2011 ( N = 360). There was a linear decrease over time in the proportion of songs with a love theme and in the proportion of songs with a combination of lust and love themes. In contrast, there was a significant increase in the proportion of songs with a theme focusing on lust in the absence of love. Themes of lust in the absence of love were especially prevalent in hip-hop/rap music, although music genre did not account for the changing themes over time. These shifts in themes found in popular music may both influence cultural norms and reflect a cultural shift toward acceptance of sexuality outside of love 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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.180 · 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