A cluster analysis of harmony in the McGill Billboard dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We set out to perform a cluster analysis of harmonic structures (specifically, chord-to-chord transitions) in the McGill Billboard dataset, to determine whether there is evidence of multiple harmonic grammars and practices in the corpus, and if so, what the optimal division of songs, according to those harmonic grammars, is. We define optimal as providing meaningful, specific information about the harmonic practices of songs in the cluster, but being general enough to be used as a guide to songwriting and predictive listening. We test two hypotheses in our cluster analysis — first that 5–9 clusters would be optimal, based on the work of Walter Everett (2004), and second that 15 clusters would be optimal, based on a set of user-generated genre tags reported by Hendrik Schreiber (2015). We subjected the harmonic structures for each song in the corpus to a K-means cluster analysis. We conclude that the optimal clustering solution is likely to be within the 5–8 cluster range. We also propose that a map of cluster types emerging as the number of clusters increases from one to eight constitutes a greater aid to our understanding of how various harmonic practices, styles, and sub-styles comprise the McGill Billboard dataset.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".