MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145651392 · doi:10.1177/107385840200800412

Book Review: Brain Specialization for Music

2002· review· en· W2145651392 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

VenueThe Neuroscientist · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionNeuroscienceCognitive scienceComprehensionHuman brainMusicalComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Music, like language, is a universal and specific trait to humans. Similarly, music appreciation, like language comprehension, appears to be the product of a dedicated brain organization. Support for the existence of music-specific neural networks is found in various pathological conditions that isolate musical abilities from the rest of the cognitive system. Cerebrovascular accidents, traumatic brain damage, and congenital brain anomalies can lead to selective disorders of music processing. Conversely, autism and epilepsy can reveal the autonomous functioning and the selectivity, respectively, of the neural networks that subserve music. However, brain specialization for music should not be equated with the presence of a singular "musical center" in the brain. Rather, multiple interconnected neural networks are engaged, of which some may capture the essence of brain specialization for music. The encoding of pitch along musical scales is likely such an essential component. The implications of the existence of such special-purpose cortical processes are that the human brain might be hardwired for music.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.222 · 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