MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162562067 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/xveqy

Survey of the Home Music Environment of Children with Various Developmental Profiles

2020· preprint· en· W3162562067 on OpenAlexaff
Selena Steinberg, Carolyn M. Shivers, Talia Liu, Laura K. Cirelli, Miriam Lense

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingingPsychologyMusicalDevelopmental psychologyMusical development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Families with young children with and without developmental disabilities often create a musically rich home environment. Parent-child music engagement, like singing play songs, is associated with positive outcomes for children, parents, and their relationship. However, little is known about if the home music environment differs across diagnostic groups and if parent-child music engagement relates to parent-child affective attachment across families of diagnostically diverse children. Using an online questionnaire, the current study examined the home music environment of 340 families with young children with typical and atypical development. A variety of musical activities were common in all diagnostic groups. Diagnostic groups differed in active musical engagement, potentially relating to the differing phenotypes of various developmental disabilities. Parent-child music engagement was associated with parent-child affective attachment, even when controlling for relevant variables. Promoting musical engagement at home and through parent-child therapy may be an accessible way to support parent-child relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207