MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950803560 · doi:10.82308/50902

Global controller: making the musical instrument digital interface, 1983-1999

2015· article· en· W2950803560 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ryan Diduck

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsMIDIPianoMusical instrumentComputer musicMusicalInterface (matter)Computer scienceMusic technologyMusic industryMultimediaMusic educationVisual artsArtAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global Controller examines the creation of the Musical Instrument Digital Interface, or MIDI, since its public announcement in 1983. Through careful analyses of interviews and musical instrument business documents, it highlights the process by which MIDI came into existence, and its influential role as a technical standard in the digital musical instrument ecosystem. Ideas about the intersecting synthesizer and computer industries, and a review of the emergent body of standards and music technology literature are presented in the Introduction. Chapter 1 advances a case for “claviocentrism:” or, the centrality of piano keyboard-based instruments in Western music-making traditions. It examines the thousand-year history of clavier devices, and considers the drive towards musical automata. Chapter 2 looks at pre-MIDI interfaces, and early moves towards connecting digital instruments. Through interviews with musicians and engineers, the path towards MIDI’s establishment is traced through various competing musical genre and technological innovations. Chapter 3 considers the roles of multifarious professional associations in the creation of MIDI. The North American Music Merchants, the MIDI Manufacturers Association, and the International MIDI Association are discussed, while questioning the user’s role in shaping the MIDI specification. Chapter 4 considers a number of industry studies commissioned in the 1990s to capitalize on the success of MIDI in the musical instrument marketplace. The chapter focuses on the growing relationship between MIDI and the computer business, and the development of new digital audio musical products. Findings from these analyses, and a discussion of post-MIDI music making practices are summarized in the Conclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207