Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study employed a protocol specially developed for testing toddlers’ singing competence. The protocol was designed to increase responsivity of toddlers during testing. The singing ranges and singing accuracy of three-year-old children were measured using the protocol ( N = 39). A large proportion of the three-year-olds participated in at least one item (89.7%), which is a high rate of participation for this age group, validating the appropriateness of the protocol applied. The most successful test item was the Self-selected song as it elicited the highest response rate of all items (87%). Furthermore, the Self-selected song resulted in more accurate renditions in terms of preservation of melodic contour (85%) and intervals (24%) than another item consisting of a familiar standard song phrase. In ascending pitch glides, 73% of the toddlers lifted their voice above C5 and the highest produced pitch was C6 (two octaves above middle C). Pitch matching accuracy was highly pitch dependent, with middle C as the most accurately matched pitch (53%) and C above middle C the least accurately matched pitch (11%). The findings support previous research that describes three-year-olds as capable singers while contradicting more widely accepted views of three-year-olds having poorly developed singing skills.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".