MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144682649 · doi:10.1525/mp.2005.23.2.137

Analyzing Temporal Dynamics in Music

2005· article· en· W2144682649 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

VenueMusic Perception An Interdisciplinary Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMusicalDynamics (music)Computer scienceTension (geology)Proxy (statistics)PsychologyVisual artsArtMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THIS ARTICLE INTRODUCES THEORETICAL and analytical tools for research involving musical emotion or musical change. We describe techniques for visualizing and analyzing data drawn from timevarying processes, such as continuous tension judgments, movement tracking, and performance tempo curves. Functional Data Analysis tools are demonstrated with real-time judgments of musical tension (a proxy for musical affect) to reveal patterns of tension and resolution in a listener's experience. The derivatives of tension judgment curves are shown to change with cycles of expectation and release in music, indexing the dynamics of musical tension. We explore notions of potential energy and kinetic energy in music and propose that affective energy is stored or released in the listener as musical tension increases and decreases. Differential calculus (and related concepts) are introduced as tools for the analysis of temporal dynamics in musical performances, and phase-plane plots are described as a means to quantify and to visualize musical change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.288 · 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