Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brand and model of strings used on violins are considered to play a significant role in their playability and sound quality. An experiment was designed to test the perceptual quality of different violin strings. A professional violinist selected two violins, from a set of the same make/model, that had similar sound and playing qualities. Three different types of strings were chosen for this study: Dominant, Kaplan, and Pro-Arté strings. Professional and advanced student violinists were invited to play and evaluate the violins. The experiment involved three phases: in the first phase, the two violins were strung with the same types of strings; in the last two phases, the strings of one of the violins was changed to the other two different types of strings (in a random manner). Violinists were asked to freely describe the differences of the two violins in each phase and rate them on eight specified criteria. Preliminary results indicate that the violin with Dominant strings was perceived as being more responsive and having a brighter sound, while that with the Pro-Arté strings was considered to have a richer sound and better overall quality.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".