MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156471141 · doi:10.1002/dev.20059

Are there critical periods for musical development?

2005· review· en· W2156471141 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

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMusicalCognitive psychologyPeriod (music)Musical developmentConjunction (astronomy)TimbreFunction (biology)Cognitive scienceExperiential learningCommunicationEvolutionary biologyBiologyAestheticsMathematics educationVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical period can be defined as a developmental window during which specific experience has a greater effect than at other times. Musical behavior involves many skills, including the basic encoding of pitch and time information, understanding scale and harmonic structure, performance, interpretation, and composition. We review studies of genetics, behavior, and brain structure and function in conjunction with the experiences of auditory deprivation and musical enrichment, and conclude that there is more supporting evidence for critical periods for basic than for more complex aspects of musical pitch acquisition. Much remains unknown about the mechanisms of interaction between genetic and experiential factors that create critical periods, but it is clear that there are multiple pathways for achieving musical expertise.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.217 · 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