MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205601488 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/h7235

Does Chronotype explain Daily Timing of Music Behaviors?

2021· preprint· en· W4205601488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shannon Wright, Caroline Palmėr

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronotypeEveningMorningPsychologyRhythmPeriod (music)Circadian rhythmDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We addressed how circadian rhythms influence daily musical activities of performing musicians, who exhibit fine temporal control. Music performances often occur in the evening and late at night; evidence suggests that composing musicians tend to be later chronotypes than non-composing musicians. However, chronotype and daily music-making in performing musicians have yet to be investigated. The current study examined chronotype in actively practicing and/or performing musicians and non-musicians, and whether it was related to the daily timing of music performance. To test influences of daily changes due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, disruptions to musical, athletic, social, and sleep habits were also measured. Performing musicians, active (practicing but non-performing) musicians, inactive musicians, and non-musicians, residing in Canada, completed a 7-day online daily activity and sleep diary in Summer 2020. There were more evening chronotypes than morning chronotypes in the sample. Active/performing musicians tended to be earlier chronotypes than all other groups. Musicians' chronotype, but not nightly sleep timing, predicted the time of day that musicians made music: Late chronotypes made music later in the day and early chronotypes made music earlier in the day. Music performance and practice amount decreased during the COVID-19 period, but the daily timing of these activities did not change. All participants reported later sleep onset during the COVID-19 period; the amount of social interaction decreased during the COVID-19 period, while exercise increased for some and decreased for others. No changes in the daily timing of exercise, social interaction, or morning wake-up were reported. These findings suggest that performing musicians may be slightly earlier chronotypes than non-performing musicians and non-musicians, despite music performances often occurring in the evening. Chronotype was related to the time of day of music-making independent of nightly sleep timing, suggesting that times of day for making music reflect an individual's circadian rhythm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeuroscience and Music Perception→French-language works237,207→