MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4252156222 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14662053

Improving Specificity of the Musical Mood Induction Procedure

2021· preprint· en· W4252156222 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Liskovoi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSadnessArousalValence (chemistry)AudiologyMoodAnxietySkin conductancePsychologyHeart rateClinical psychologyMedicineInternal medicineAngerPsychiatrySocial psychologyBlood pressureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The musical mood induction procedure was used to induce 3 negative moods: sadness, fatigue and anxiety. Induction was validated using subjective and physiological measures. One hundred twenty-seven participants listened to one of 18 film soundtrack excerpts for 20 minutes. Physiological response (heart rate, respiration, skin conductance level (SCL), and facial electromyography) was recorded throughout the induction and postinduction phases. Subjective mood ratings (sadness, anxiety, tiredness, valence, arousal) were provided before induction and throughout the postinduction phase. Repeated measures ANOVAs showed increase in valence and decrease in arousal in all conditions after induction, which persisted in the postinduction phase, and an increase in tiredness immediately after induction. Reduction in SCL was strongest in the fatigue condition. However, difference between groups was only evident when comparing fatigue and sadness conditions between 3-10 minutes. Lack of between-group differences and mixed physiological findings suggest that specificity is difficult to achieve through musical mood induction.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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→