MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383300166 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8121266

THE ANIME SOUND: An Analytical and Semiotic Study of Contemporary Anime Music

2023· dissertation· en· W4383300166 on OpenAlexaff
Tân Nazaré

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimeSemioticsSound (geography)ArtLiteratureLinguisticsAcousticsPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis discusses prominent musical elements found in anime (Japanese animation). The resulting analyses show that several elements contribute to extramusical expression (emotion, storytelling) and meaning (aesthetics, sociocultural values, identity). The research material in this thesis situates anime music in both the topics of global pop music theory and media studies, particularly Japanese aesthetics in entertainment multimedia. Analyses and discussions presented in this thesis benefited from academic discourse in the field of music theory, specifically pop music theory (Peres 2016, Biamonte 2010, Duinker 2019) and semiotics (Greimas 1970, Simeon 1996). To aid the unfamiliar reader, the first chapter (Introduction) should give sufficient background before tackling the three subsequent theoretical chapters. Prominent musical aspects in anime music, such as the opening sequence format (“OP format”), and the timbrally bright pre-introduction (“call section”) within the OP format, are both products of my research and analysis. Other musical aspects already discussed academically or in public music theory are further analysed here, such as the “Royal Road” progression and the “Japanese augmented sixth.” Readers from wider expertise within music, such as composition and global studies, should find in this thesis an introduction to the world of media music from across the globe.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207