Perspectives and Interpretations: Weighted Power Law Analyses of Three Short Works for Piano
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power law relationships, which describe scaling relationships of data, are powerful information theoretic descriptive tools in many empirical contexts, including that of music. Zipf’s law (pink noise) describes the optimum case of a power law relation where observations are exactly inversely proportional to their rank. Descriptions that approximate a pink noise signature can be said to maximize the amount of information in a signal, and is thus suggestive of a richness of an understanding. This information density of pink noise signatures is not, however, necessarily a desirable quality for explanations in general, which, by definition, “flattens out” some data while highlighting others, ideally those most relevant to an interpretation. The privileging of data most relevant to comprehension corresponds to a red noise relationship, as opposed to the pink noise of Zipf’s law or the white noise of a description that highlights nothing in particular. Here, I explore and evaluate this concept of red noise explanations in the form of analyses of three comparable short piano works: Robert Schumann’s “Von fremden Ländern und Menschen” (no.1 from Kinderszenen op. 15, 1838), Frédéric Chopin’s Prelude op. 28 no. 20 (1838-9), and Felix Mendelssohn’s “Venetianisches Gondellied” (no. 6 from Lieder ohne Worte op. 19b, 1829-30).
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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 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".