Is music autonomous from language? A neuropsy chological appraisal
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
Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, USA Isabelle PeretzDépartement de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, CanadaINTRODUCTIONMusic and language are universal among humans, and both employ richly structured auditory and motor patterns. Since music and language are the two primary acoustic communicative systems of our species, their similarities and differences as cognitive domains have long interested scholars. (e.g. Aiello, 1994; Albert, Sparks & Helm, 1973; Besson, Faïta, & Requin, 1994; Bernstein, 1976; Blacking, 1976; Clarke, 1989; Darwin, 1871; Handel, 1989; Judd, Gardner & Geschwind, 1983; Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983; Levman, 1992; Nettl, 1956; Rousseau, 1761; Selkirk, 1984; Sergent, 1993; Sloboda, 1985; Sundberg & Lindblom, 1976; Sundberg, Nord & Carlson 1991; Trehub & Trainor, 1993). These contributions highlight the diversity of fields which have addressed this issue, from philosophy to the social, psychological, and biological sciences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it