MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229739920 · doi:10.1177/1029864917691571

Age trends in musical preferences in adulthood: 1. Conceptualization and empirical investigation

2017· article· en· W4229739920 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arielle Bonneville‐Roussy, David Stillwell, Michał Kosiński, John Rust

Bibliographic record

VenueMusicae Scientiae · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCambridge Commonwealth Trust
KeywordsMusicalPsychologyConceptualizationAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyTest (biology)Cognitive psychologySocial psychologyLinguisticsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to fill some gaps in theory and research on age trends in musical preferences in adulthood by presenting a conceptual model that describes three classes of determinants that can affect those trends. The Music Preferences in Adulthood Model (MPAM) posits that some psychological determinants that are extrinsic to the music (individual differences and social influences), and some that are intrinsic to the music (the perceived inner properties of the music), affect age differences in musical preferences in adulthood. We first present the MPAM, which aims to explain age trends in musical preferences in adulthood, and to identify which variables may be the most important determinants of those trends. We then validate a new test of musical preferences that assesses musical genres and clips in parallel. Finally, with a sample of 4,002 adults, we examine age trends in musical preferences for genres and clips, using our newly developed test. Our results confirm the presence of robust age trends in musical preferences, and provide a basis for the investigation of the extrinsic and intrinsic psychological determinants of musical preferences, in line with the MPAM framework.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations45
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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