Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that the majority of occasional singers can carry a tune. For example, when asked to sing a well-known song (e.g., "Happy Birthday"), nonmusicians performing at a slow tempo are as proficient as professional singers. Yet, some occasional singers are poor singers, mostly in the pitch domain, and sometimes despite not having impoverished perception. Poor singing is not a monolithic deficit, but is likely to be characterized by a diversity of singing "phenotypes." Here we systematically examined singing proficiency in a group of occasional singers, with the goal of characterizing the different patterns of poor singing. Participants sang three well-known melodies (e.g., "Jingle Bells") at a natural tempo and at a slow tempo, as indicated by a metronome. For each rendition, we computed objective measures of pitch and time accuracy with an acoustical method. The results confirmed previous observations that the majority of occasional singers can sing in tune and in time. Moreover, singing at a slow tempo after the target melody to be imitated was presented with a metronome improved pitch and time accuracy. In general, poor singers were mostly impaired on the pitch dimension, although various patterns of impairment emerged. Pitch accuracy or time accuracy could be selectively impaired; moreover, absolute measures of singing proficiency (pitch or tempo transposition) dissociated from relative measures of proficiency (pitch intervals, relative duration). These patterns of dissociations point to a multicomponent system underlying proficient singing that fractionates as a result of a developmental anomaly.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".