MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324974625 · doi:10.1037/a0033471

Revisiting the innate preference for consonance.

2013· article· en· W2324974625 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConsonance and dissonanceConsonantPreferenceStimulus (psychology)PsychologyAudiologyCognitive psychologyMathematicsMedicineSpeech recognitionComputer scienceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The origin of the Western preference for consonance remains unresolved, with some suggesting that the preference is innate. In Experiments 1 and 2 of the present study, 6-month-old infants heard six different consonant/dissonant pairs of stimuli, including those tested in previous research. In contrast to the findings of others, infants in the present study failed to listen longer to consonant stimuli. After 3 minutes of exposure to consonant or dissonant stimuli in Experiment 3, 6-month-old infants listened longer to the familiar stimulus, whether consonant or dissonant. Our findings are inconsistent with innate preferences for consonant stimuli. Instead, the effect of short-term exposure is consistent with the view that familiarity underlies the origin of the Western preference for consonant intervals.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.289 · 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