The impact of producers’ comments and musicians’ self-evaluation on perceived recording quality
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of recording technologies always transforms musicians’ perception of their performance when playing in the studio. In many cases, during recording sessions, musicians repeat the same musical composition over and over again without the presence of an audience. We hypothesize that comments from an external record producer and/or self-evaluation after listening to the takes in the control room address the challenges of studio recording by helping musicians improve from one recorded take to another. We conduct a field experiment with 25 jazz players, grouped into five ensembles, participating in recording sessions with four record producers. The musicians are invited to record four compositions, one in each of four experimental conditions. To create these conditions, we independently manipulate two types of feedback between takes: with or without comments from the record producer and with or without musicians’ self-evaluation (after listening to the takes in the control room). Our results show that both external comments and self-evaluation provide objectivity by giving the ensemble a common ground. Specifically, listening to the first take enhances creativity while external comments positively impact a takes’ evolution throughout the session
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it