MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210865610 · doi:10.1177/10298649211072505

Mechanisms of absolute pitch: II. Pitch shift and perfect touch

2022· article· en· W4210865610 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Thurlow, Jon Baggaley

Bibliographic record

VenueMusicae Scientiae · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsolute (philosophy)Absolute pitchRelative pitchTone (literature)PsychologyQuality (philosophy)MusicalCommunicationCognitive psychologyAcousticsAudiologyMathematicsArtLiteraturePhysicsPhilosophyPerceptionEpistemologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The previous article in this series reviewed the historical and modern academic literature concerning the distinctive characteristics of individual musical notes and keys. It stressed Bachem’s definition of tone chroma (TC) as the quality that allows notes/keys to be identified instantly and accurately by musicians possessing the type of absolute pitch (AP) that Bachem described as genuine. TC qualities were shown to vary in the same systematic manner as the second-order acoustical beats predicted to accumulate during the tuning of instruments to equal temperament. This article offers further evidence for the connection between TC and acoustical sensitivity, as indicated by an examination of paracusis musicalis (PM), the shifting of the pitch sense with age to a level sharper or flatter than its original level. It is also noted that AP judgments have been shown to be based on kinaesthetic and tactile sensations, which perform the same cueing functions as auditory TC, and that types of AP judgment may, therefore, exist not typically identified as absolute: for example, an absolute or perfect touch capacity observed in keyboard players. Evidence of this capacity supports the theory of instrument-specific AP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusicae ScientiaeSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207