MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597092708 · doi:10.7202/1038943ar

Addressing Common Parental Concerns about Factors That Could Influence Piano Students’ Autonomous Motivation, Diligence, and Performance

2017· article· en· W2597092708 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntersections Canadian Journal of Music · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiligencePianoPsychologyCreativitySittingFeelingCompetence (human resources)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyApplied psychologyManagementMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the effects of choices parents can make regarding their child’s piano lessons: age started, instruction method, taking exams, taking group lessons, sitting in on lessons, helping with home practice, giving rewards for practising. Parental choices were correlated with the following child variables regarding piano playing: autonomous motivation, interest in performance and creativity, interest in effortful practice, time spent practising, feeling of competence, and exam performance. We administered questionnaires to 173 piano students aged six to sixteen and their parents. The most beneficial predictors were: initiating lessons before age seven, sitting in on lessons, and helping with home practice.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.146 · 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