MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007551847 · doi:10.1525/mp.2020.37.3.185

Cross-Cultural Work in Music Cognition

2020· article· en· W3007551847 on OpenAlexaff
Nori Jacoby, Elizabeth Hellmuth Margulis, Martin Clayton, Erin E. Hannon, Henkjan Honing, John R. Iversen, Tobias Klein, Samuel A. Mehr, Lara Pearson, Isabelle Peretz, Marc Perlman, Rainer Polak, Andrea Ravignani, Patrick E. Savage, Gavin Steingo, Catherine Stevens, Laurel J. Trainor, Sandra E. Trehub, Michael E. Veal, Melanie Wald‐Fuhrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueMusic Perception An Interdisciplinary Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceArts and Humanities Research CouncilHarvard Data Science Initiative, Harvard UniversityEuropean CommissionVlaamse regeringFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Institutes of HealthKeio UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTerminologyField (mathematics)PsychologyDisciplinePosition paperWork (physics)CognitionSociologyEngineering ethicsCognitive scienceSocial scienceComputer scienceEngineeringLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

psychology of music require cross-cultural approaches, yet the vast majority of work in the field to date has been conducted with Western participants and Western music. For cross-cultural research to thrive, it will require collaboration between people from different disciplinary backgrounds, as well as strategies for overcoming differences in assumptions, methods, and terminology. This position paper surveys the current state of the field and offers a number of concrete recommendations focused on issues involving ethics, empirical methods, and definitions of "music" and "culture."

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
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

Citations156
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusic Perception An Interdisciplinary JournalSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207