MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392001693 · doi:10.20431/2347-3134.1112002

Can the Key Signature, Mode, and the Beats per Minute of a Song Predict the Emotional Tone of Popular Music Lyrics?

2023· article· en· W4392001693 on OpenAlexaff
Derek Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsCambrian College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLyricsTone (literature)Key (lock)Signature (topology)Mode (computer interface)PsychologySpeech recognitionCommunicationArtComputer scienceLiteratureMathematicsComputer securityHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dictionary of Affect (Whissell, 2009) was used to analyze the lyrics in popular music to determine if the emotional tone of the lyrics (pleasantness, activation, and imagery) was associated with various components of the popular music (key signature, mode, and beats per minute).The first analysis (N = 80 songs; 21,176 words) examined the relationship between the key signature (for example, the keys of A, B, C, D, E, F, or G; disregarding the major or minor mode) and the emotional tone of the lyrics, but no significant associations were noted.In the second investigation (N = 60 songs; 17,281 words), the song's mode (major or minor key signatures) was related to significant differences in the lyrics' pleasantness (p = .028).Song lyrics written in major modes (M = 55.5) were significantly more pleasant than those written in minor modes (M = 52.8);however, the mean pleasantness of the minor song lyrics was still in the pleasant range for the Dictionary of Affect.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on Studies in English Language and LiteratureSame topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207