Music, Computing, and Health: A Roadmap for the Current and Future Roles of Music Technology for Health Care and Well-Being
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fields of music, health, and technology have seen significant interactions in recent years in developing music technology for health care and well-being. In an effort to strengthen the collaboration between the involved disciplines, the workshop “Music, Computing, and Health” was held to discuss best practices and state-of-the-art at the intersection of these areas with researchers from music psychology and neuroscience, music therapy, music information retrieval, music technology, medical technology (medtech), and robotics. Following the discussions at the workshop, this article provides an overview of the different methods of the involved disciplines and their potential contributions to developing music technology for health and well-being. Furthermore, the article summarizes the state of the art in music technology that can be applied in various health scenarios and provides a perspective on challenges and opportunities for developing music technology that (1) supports person-centered care and evidence-based treatments, and (2) contributes to developing standardized, large-scale research on music-based interventions in an interdisciplinary manner. The article provides a resource for those seeking to engage in interdisciplinary research using music-based computational methods to develop technology for health care, and aims to inspire future research directions by evaluating the state of the art with respect to the challenges facing each field.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it