A Comparative Study of Western and Chinese Classical Music Based on Soundscape Models
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
Whether literally or suggestively, the concept of soundscape is alluded in both modern and ancient music. In this study, we examine whether we can analyze and compare Western and Chinese classical music based on soundscape models. We addressed this question through a comparative study. Specifically, corpora of Western classical music excerpts (WCMED) and Chinese classical music excerpts (CCMED) were curated and annotated with emotional valence and arousal through a crowdsourcing experiment. We used a sound event detection (SED) and soundscape emotion recognition (SER) models with transfer learning to predict the perceived emotion of WCMED and CCMED. The results show that both SER and SED models could be used to analyze Chinese and Western classical music. The fact that SER and SED work better on Chinese classical music emotion recognition provides evidence that certain similarities exist between Chinese classical music and soundscape recordings, which permits transferability between machine learning models.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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