Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhythm perception and production can be disrupted by neurological or neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., Parkinson’s disease, dyslexia). Rhythm deficits are associated with poor performance in language, attention, and working memory tasks. Re-training rhythmic skills may thus provide a promising avenue for improving these associated cognitive functions. To this end, here we present a new protocol for selective training of rhythmic skills implemented in a tablet serious game called Rhythm Workers. Experiment 1 served to select 54 musical excerpts based on the tapping performance of 18 non-musicians who moved to the beat of music. The excerpts were sorted in terms of the difficulty of tracking their beat, and assigned to different difficulty levels in the game. In Experiment 2, the training protocol was devised and tested in a proof-of-concept study, including two versions of the game. One version (tapping version) required a synchronized motor response (via tapping), while the other (perception version) asked for a perceptual judgment. Ten participants were trained with one version and 10 with the other version of Rhythm Workers, for 2 weeks. A control group ( n = 10) did not receive any training. Participants in the experimental groups showed high compliance and motivation in playing the game. The effect of the training on rhythm skills yielded encouraging results with both versions of the game. Rhythm Workers thus appears to be a motivating and potentially efficient way to train rhythmic abilities in healthy young adults, with possible applications for (re)training these skills in individuals with rhythm disorders.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it