An investigation into musicians’ thoughts and perceptions during performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the current state of understanding surrounding musicians’ experiences while performing, this study sought to investigate musicians’ thoughts and perceptions during performances and the perceived impact their evaluation of those thoughts and perceptions has on their subsequent musical activities. Twenty-nine student and professional classical musicians were interviewed concerning factors perceived to contribute to the quality of performances, experiences prior to and during performances, and their responses to performances. Self-perceived successful performances were often connected with feelings of sufficient preparation and positive mind-sets, and presented a high yet attainable level of challenge. Less successful performances were typically linked with inadequate preparation, negative mental outlooks, frustration, and lack of enjoyment during the performance itself. Furthermore, the results pointed to the relevance of facilitative versus debilitative perfectionism, locus of control, interpretation of anxiety symptoms, and the interaction between self-talk, self-efficacy, and performance quality to musicians’ performance experiences and satisfaction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it