Automatic Music Genre Classification and Its Relation with Music Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because the classification saves time in the learning process and enables this process to take place more easily, its contribution to music learning cannot be denied. One of the most valid and effective methods in music classification is music genre classification. Given the rapid progress of music production in the world and the significant increase in the number of data, the process of classifying music genres has now become too complex to be done by humans. Considering the successful results of deep neural networks in this field, the aim is to develop a deep learning algorithm that can classify 10 different music genres. To reveal the efficiency of the model by comparing it with others, we make the classification using the GTZAN dataset, which was previously used in many studies and retains its validity. In this article, we use a convolutional neural network (CNN) to classify music genres, taking into account the previous successful results. Unlike previous studies in which CNN was used as a classifier, we represent music segments in the dataset by mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) instead of using visual features or representations. We obtain MFCCs by preprocessing the music pieces in the dataset, then train a CNN model with the acquired MFCCs and determine the success of the model with the testing data. As a result of this study, we develop a model that is successful in classifying music genres by using smaller data than previous studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".