Perceptions of improvements in piano performance following a Body Mapping workshop
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly popular for musicians to study Body Mapping, a method of body movement education, to improve both body movement and musical quality. In Body Mapping workshops, observers frequently claim that they can both see and hear improvements in the performance, yet previous research does not support this anecdotal evidence. In the present study, pianists received a full day Body Mapping workshop and a panel of judges, blind to condition, evaluated audio and silent video clips of performances recorded the day before and the day after the workshop. In Experiment 1, judges were able to identify the post-test recordings by silent video at a rate significantly better than chance, but not with audio alone. In Experiment 2, ratings of quality of body movement were significantly higher for post-test silent video recordings, but no such effect was observed with audio alone. The present findings suggest that there are visible but not audible changes to the pianists’ performance. We discuss visual dominance as a possible explanation for these findings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it