Bibliographic record
Abstract
This short essay responds to issues raised by Fischinger and Dyck-Hemming in their commentary on this author's article "Tapping to Carter: Mensural Determinacy in Complex Rhythmic Sequences." Borrowing Christopher Hasty's concept of mensural determinacy, I used an excerpt of Elliott Carter's 90+ for piano (1994) as source materials for a tapping experiment aimed at: (1) testing the hypothesis that style-specific expertise correlates with lower tapping variability; (2) exploring the influence of an implied beat on participants' interpretation of the underlying pulse, as shown by spontaneous tapping; and (3) exploring the influence of a subset of musical parameters as well as participants' characteristics on tapping behavior. This response aims to clarify the methodology employed, especially with reference to the interpretation of the results; it also addresses concerns raised by the reviewers in relation to the use of the tapping paradigm to investigate Carter's compositional language. While the experimental method necessarily limited the interpretation of participants' ongoing experience of pulse, the findings provide useful insights on the role of style-specific expertise and call for a more diverse and disciplinarily unbounded methodological approach to the study of musical communication.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".