Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present review summarizes the available evidence on musicality, or music-related abilities, in infants (birth to 3 years). In the early months of life, infants are responsive to the pitch and temporal patterns of music. Their perceptual skills are similar, in many respects, to those of adults, presumably because of the nature of the human auditory system. Adult-infant differences, where evident, are attributable to infants’ unfamiliarity with the musical conventions of their culture. Musical enculturation proceeds more rapidly for temporal than for pitch processing. Musical exposure, especially the singing of caregivers, is prevalent in infancy. Caregivers’ music-making for infants has consequences for their emotional and social regulation and for their subsequent self-regulation abilities. By the end of their first year, most infants have become music-makers as well as music listeners. They move spontaneously to music, and their patterns of “dancing” undergo considerable change in the subsequent months and years. Early dancing is influenced by the familiarity of the music, and later dancing may include aspects of caregivers’ dance movements. Although the onset of singing occurs considerably later than the onset of dance, early singing is remarkably accurate in terms of its pitch range, pitch contours, rhythmic patterning, and fluency, especially when infants sing in their familiar home environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".