MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613118347 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00759

A Walk on the Wild Side: The Impact of Music on Risk-Taking Likelihood

2017· article· en· W2613118347 on OpenAlexafffund
Rickard Enström, Rodney Schmaltz

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyActive listeningRisk perceptionSocial psychologyPerspective (graphical)RecreationScale (ratio)Perception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From a marketing perspective, there has been substantial interest in on the role of risk-perception on consumer behavior. Specific 'problem music' like rap and heavy metal has long been associated with delinquent behavior, including violence, drug use, and promiscuous sex. Although individuals' risk preferences have been investigated across a range of decision-making situations, there has been little empirical work demonstrating the direct role music may have on the likelihood of engaging in risky activities. In the exploratory study reported here, we assessed the impact of listening to different styles of music while assessing risk-taking likelihood through a psychometric scale. Risk-taking likelihood was measured across ethical, financial, health and safety, recreational and social domains. Through the means of a canonical correlation analysis, the multivariate relationship between different music styles and individual risk-taking likelihood across the different domains is discussed. Our results indicate that listening to different types of music does influence risk-taking likelihood, though not in areas of health and safety.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207