Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has suggested that listening to music can be a helpful strategy in promoting feelings of relaxation, especially when participants can select their own music. However, the role of singing in relaxation is less clear. Some studies have examined the effects of group singing on levels of stress hormones, or have used singing as a way to induce stress, but none have examined whether or not singing alone in the absence of social stressors can decrease stress. The purpose of the current research study is to examine the role of music preferences in singing vs. listening for stress relief. Participants will complete various questionnaires in relation to their demographics, personality, and music experience. A mathematical stress-provoking task will follow, where they will rate their levels of perceived stress. Next, they will be randomly assigned to a listening or singing condition, with a song selection that they either enjoy or dislike. We hypothesize that individuals who sing preferred songs under low social stress should have a higher overall decrease in stress than those who were assigned songs they disliked. This research is not only beneficial to the student population with managing stress, but it could also have many implications in real-world settings. Future research should continue to examine other ways that singing in the absence of social pressure can aid in various therapeutic techniques. Presented in absentia on April 27, 2020 at Student Research Day at MacEwan University in Edmonton, Alberta. (Conference cancelled) Faculty Mentor: Kathleen Corrigall Department: Psychology NOTE: This work is available to MacEwan users only at https://roam.macewan.ca/islandora/object/gm:2083
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".