Bibliographic record
Abstract
To control the tone of their instrument, piano teachers at University of Montreal recommend to act on the double escapement action by modifying the “weight” applied on the keys. When the pianist uses more weight, the key is pressed to the bottom of the keyboard and the pianists feel a bump when they pass the escapement threshold. When using less “weight”, they play more at the surface of the keyboard. The present study aims to verify if this variation of weight has an impact on the piano tone. Two series of recordings were analysed. In a first series, pianists played a short musical phrase varying several control parameters (with/without weight, with/without pedal) and at several intensity levels. In a second series of recordings, isolated notes were played in the same conditions. Simultaneously to the recording of the piano tones, a video image of double escapement grand piano action was captured with a camera placed inside the piano. The analysis of the data shows that the piano tones produced with and without weight differ along several acoustical descriptors (temporal and spectral features). The main parameters which are modified are related to the quality of the attack.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".