MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989630423 · doi:10.1037/xlm0000798

Musical ability, music training, and language ability in childhood.

2019· article· en· W2989630423 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMusicalPsychologyLinguisticsCommunicationCognitive psychologyArtVisual artsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

grammar, as well as IQ, working memory, openness, and age. Regression analyses-with other variables held constant-revealed that language abilities had significant partial associations with musical ability and IQ but not with music training. Rhythm discrimination was a better predictor of language skills compared with melody discrimination, but memory for music was equally good. Bayesian analyses confirmed the results from the standard analyses. The implications of the findings are threefold: (a) musical ability predicts language ability, and the association is independent of IQ and other confounding variables; (b) links between music and language appear to arise primarily from preexisting factors and not from formal training in music; and (c) evidence for a special link between rhythm and language may emerge only when rhythm discrimination is compared with melody discrimination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.299 · 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