Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emotion characterizes the experience of film, as it does the experience of music. Because music almost always accompanies film, we may well ask what contributionmusic makes to the emotional aspects of film. The present chapter addresses this question. It should be said at the outset that in spite of the integral role of music for film, film music has been largely neglected by the disciplines of both musicology and music psychology until the last decade (e.g. Cohen 1994;Marks 1998; Prendergast 1991). The reasons for the neglect are complex, arising from social, technological, economic, historical, and cultural factors. Some of these factors also account for a parallel neglect by psychology of the study of film perception (Hochberg & Brooks 1996a, 1996b). Moreover, unlike other types of popular or art music, much music for film has been composed with the understanding that it will not be consciously attended to. Countering this neglect, the present chapter takes a psychological perspective on the sublime and remarkable emotional phenomena produced by music in the context of film. This chapter has the joint intent of supporting the argument that music is one of the strongest sources of emotion in film and of opening doors to further empirical work that explains why this is so.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".