AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON OF FORMAL MEASURES OF RHYTHMIC SYNCOPATION
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
Rhythmic syncopation is one of the most fundamental features that can be used to characterize music. Therefore it can be applied in a variety of domains such as music information retrieval and style analysis. During the past twenty years a score of different formal measures of rhythmic syncopation have been proposed in the music literature. Here we compare eight of these measures with each other and with human judgements of rhythmic complexity. A data set of 35 rhythms ranked by human subjects was sorted using the eight syncopation measures. A Spearman rank correlation analysis of the rankings was carried out, and phylogenetic trees were calculated to visualize the resulting matrix of coefficients. The main finding is that the measures based on perception principles agree well with human judgements and very well with each other. The results also yield several surprises and open problems for further research.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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