Modeling the contribution of auditory scene analysis principles to perceptual effects of orchestration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auditory Scene Analysis (ASA) research has provided knowledge about the principles underlying auditory organization processes and has been successfully applied in computational ASA. Based on these findings, we applied these principles within a musical context. The aim is to understand and computationally model the perception of effects, such as blend and segregation, created by the combining and contrasting of properties of traditional Western instruments which result from three auditory processes: concurrent, sequential, and segmental grouping. The initial aim was to evaluate the extent to which the symbolic data provided in a musical score provide sufficient data to model the perception of these orchestral effects. Preliminary implementations have achieved an average accuracy score of 81%, suggesting that perceptual effects of orchestration can be partially retrieved by calculations based on ASA principles using symbolic data. However, many cases indicate that including properties of the acoustic signal would enhance the predictive power. This approach also provides us with the means to investigate the relative weights of the different principles involved in these grouping processes in order to understand their relative importance in musical contexts. These findings contribute to the creation of a framework for studying and understanding the perceptual characteristics of orchestration practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".