Bibliographic record
Abstract
Melody has been defined as a distinct perceptual unit that exhibits stability and coherence to listeners and performers. These psychological processes (distinctiveness, stability, coherence) contribute to the foundations of three theories of music cognition (Bregman, 1990; Krumhansl, 1990; Narmour, 1990), yet several mysteries still exist in the human experience of melody. From early exposure to lullabies and brief exposures in advertising jingles, to the full-length concert exposure of complex musical works, listeners’ imagination and focus are captured in unique ways by the experience of melody. People with various amounts of musical training hum, tap, clap, and find other ways of interacting with a melody; they perform to it. Listeners report the experience of a recurring melody playing in their minds (earworms). I discuss neuroscience findings that aid in modeling the fine-level time course of melodic experiences, and address how the listener/performer identifies a melody as distinct in a complex auditory scene, how expectations unfold in implications and realizations that contribute to coherence, and how hierarchical tonal relationships of stability are detected. The life cycle of a melody in the ears, brain, and heart of a listener/performer sheds light on the human experience of 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".