MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769070304

Metrical Categories in Infancy and Adulthood

2003· article· en· W2769070304 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin E. Hannon, Sandra E. Trehub

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMelodySimple (philosophy)Duration (music)MacedonianPerceptionPsychologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationMathematicsLinguisticsMusicalAcousticsLiteraturePhysicsNeuroscienceArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adults tend to perceive and produce rhythmic structures with simple duration ratios and implied isochrony.If these biases result from long-term exposure to Western metrical structure, they should be evident in North American adults but not in infants.Adult similarity judgments were obtained for alterations of folk melodies that maintained or matched the original metrical structure, whether simple or complex, and for alterations that violated or mismatched the original metrical structure.Adults rated mismatching alterations as less similar than matching alterations, for simple meter patterns, but their ratings of matching and mismatching alterations did not differ for complex meter patterns.Infants, who were tested with a familiarization preference procedure, responded differentially to matching and mismatching alterations for complex as well as simple meter patterns.These findings imply that adult biases reflect long-term exposure to culture-specific metrical structure rather than intrinsic preference for simple meters.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207