How different strings affect violin qualities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brand and model of strings used on violins are considered to play a significant role in their playability and sound quality. An experiment was designed to test the perceptual quality of different violin strings. A professional violinist selected two violins, from a set of the same make/model, that had similar sound and playing qualities. Three different types of strings were chosen for this study: Dominant, Kaplan and Pro-Arté strings. Professional and advanced student violinists were invited to play and evaluate the violins. Two violins were both strung with Dominant strings initially (session labelled D1-D2). Subjects rated the difference between the two violins (violin 2 compared to violin 1) according to eight criteria. Then the strings of violin 2 were changed to a different type. Subjects rated the difference between the two violins again. In Oberlin, subjects compared Dominant and Kaplan strings in two sessions (called respectively D1-D2 and D1-K2). In Montreal, subjects compared Dominant, Kaplan and Pro-Arté strings in three trials (D1-D2, D1-K2 and D1-P2). Results showed no significant differences between the experiment conditions in either place except that the brightness difference ratings in D1-D2 were found to be significantly higher than in D1-P2 based on the Montreal results.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".