MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558141576 · doi:10.4018/ijcini.2016100104

Dimensional Music Emotion Recognition by Machine Learning

2016· article· en· W2558141576 on OpenAlexaff
Junjie Bai, Lixiao Feng, Jun Peng, Jinliang Shi, Kan Luo, Zuojin Li, Lu Liao, Yingxu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRandom forestArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineArousalRegressionRegression analysisValence (chemistry)Machine learningPattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMathematicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Music emotion recognition (MER) is a challenging field of studies that has been addressed in multiple disciplines such as cognitive science, physiology, psychology, musicology, and arts. In this paper, music emotions are modeled as a set of continuous variables composed of valence and arousal (VA) values based on the Valence-Arousal model. MER is formulated as a regression problem where 548 dimensions of music features were extracted and selected. A wide range of methods including multivariate adaptive regression spline, support vector regression (SVR), radial basis function, random forest regression (RFR), and regression neural networks are adopted to recognize music emotions. Experimental results show that these regression algorithms have led to good regression effect for MER. The optimal R2 statistics and VA values are 29.3% and 62.5%, respectively, which are obtained by the RFR and SVR algorithms in the relief feature space.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural IntelligenceSame topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207