MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953968716 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244308

Revisiting discrete versus continuous models of human behavior: The case of absolute pitch

2020· article· en· W2953968716 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen C. Van Hedger, John P. Veillette, Shannon L. M. Heald, Howard C. Nusbaum

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsAbsolute pitchPsychologyCognitive psychologyNothingComputer scienceSpeech recognitionPerceptionPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many human behaviors are discussed in terms of discrete categories. Quantizing behavior in this fashion may provide important traction for understanding the complexities of human experience, but it also may bias understanding of phenomena and associated mechanisms. One example of this is absolute pitch (AP), which is often treated as a discrete trait that is either present or absent (i.e., with easily identifiable near-perfect "genuine" AP possessors and at-chance non-AP possessors) despite emerging evidence that pitch-labeling ability is not all-or-nothing. We used a large-scale online assessment to test the discrete model of AP, specifically by measuring how intermediate performers related to the typically defined "non-AP" and "genuine AP" populations. Consistent with prior research, individuals who performed at-chance (non-AP) reported beginning musical instruction much later than the near-perfect AP participants, and the highest performers were more likely to speak a tonal language than were the lowest performers (though this effect was not as statistically robust as one would expect from prior research). Critically, however, these developmental factors did not differentiate the near-perfect AP performers from the intermediate AP performers. Gaussian mixture modeling supported the existence of two performance distributions-the first distribution encompassed both the intermediate and near-perfect AP possessors, whereas the second distribution encompassed only the at-chance participants. Overall, these results provide support for conceptualizing intermediate levels of pitch-labeling ability along the same continuum as genuine AP-level pitch labeling ability-in other words, a continuous distribution of AP skill among all above-chance performers rather than discrete categories of ability. Expanding the inclusion criteria for AP makes it possible to test hypotheses about the mechanisms that underlie this ability and relate this ability to more general cognitive mechanisms involved in other abilities.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.112 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207