Effect of Bow Camber and Mass Distribution on Violinists' Preferences and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about how bow mechanical characteristics objectively and quantitatively influence violinists' preferences and performance. Hypothesizing that the bow shape (i.e., camber) and mass distribution modifications would alter both violinists' appreciations of a bow and objective assessments of their performance, we recruited 10 professional violinists to play their own violin using 18 versions of a single bow, modified by combining three cambers and six mass distributions, in random order. A musical phrase, composed for this study, was played legato and spiccato at three octaves and two tempi. Each violinist scored all 18 bows. Then, experts assessed the recorded performances according to criteria inspired by basic musical analysis. Finally, 12 audio-descriptors were calculated on the same note from each trial, to objectivise potential acoustic differences. Statistical analysis (ANOVA) reveals that bow camber impacted the violinists' appreciations (p < 0.05), and that heavier bow tips gave lower scores for spiccato playing (p < 0.05). The expert evaluations reveal that playing with a lighter bow (tip or frog), or with a bow whose camber's maximum curvature is close to the frog, had a positive impact on some violinists' performance (NS to p < 0.001). The “camber-participant” interaction had significant effects on the violinists' appreciations (p < 0.01 to p < 0.001), on the expert's evaluation and on almost all the audio-descriptors (NS to p < 0.001). While trends were identified, multiple camber-participant interactions suggest that bow makers should provide a variety of cambers to satisfy different violinists.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".