A novel tool for evaluating children's musical abilities across age and culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE PRESENT STUDY INTRODUCES A NOVEL TOOL FOR ASSESSING MUSICAL ABILITIES IN CHILDREN: The Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Musical Abilities (MBEMA). The battery, which comprises tests of memory, scale, contour, interval, and rhythm, was administered to 245 children in Montreal and 91 in Beijing (Experiment 1), and an abbreviated version was administered to an additional 85 children in Montreal (in less than 20 min; Experiment 2). All children were 6-8 years of age. Their performance indicated that both versions of the MBEMA are sensitive to individual differences and to musical training. The sensitivity of the tests extends to Mandarin-speaking children despite the fact that they show enhanced performance relative to French-speaking children. Because this Chinese advantage is not limited to musical pitch but extends to rhythm and memory, it is unlikely that it results from early exposure to a tonal language. In both cultures and versions of the tests, amount of musical practice predicts performance. Thus, the MBEMA can serve as an objective, short and up-to-date test of musical abilities in a variety of situations, from the identification of children with musical difficulties to the assessment of the effects of musical training in typically developing children of different cultures.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".