Music Research “in the Wild” – Introducing the MusicLab Copenhagen Special Collection
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
<div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2rem 0px 0.5em; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Some of the most intense human experiences unfold while performing and listening to music. For both performers and listeners, active musical experiences—sometimes called acts of <i style="box-sizing: inherit;">musicking</i> (Small, 1998)—regulate our emotions, guide our attention, and generate prosocial behavior. It is no surprise, then, that philosophy, musicology, sociology, biology, and psychology have been occupied with understanding how and why music mediates these intense experiences. Yet, it has been difficult to produce reliable scientific knowledge while, at the same time, preserving the liveness of music as it unfolds in concert venues.</div><div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">In response to this challenge, concert research is emerging as a research topic involving interdisciplinary investigations of music, interaction, consciousness, cognition, physiology, behavior, and technology within a concert venue (Tröndle, 2021; Wald-Fuhrmann et al., 2021). With recent rapid developments in wearable sensing devices, it is now possible to perform research “in the wild” with real audiences and musicians. In this way, we are gradually getting a better grasp of what it is about live music that makes it so enriching. By analyzing the experiences, behaviors, and interactions of both musicians and audiences, we can develop methods to understand the entire ecosystem of the concert experience, even if we do not arrive at exhaustive explanations. Several groups are now pursuing such investigations, for instance, McMaster's LIVElab in Canada, the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, the Experimental Concert Research team in Berlin, and RITMO Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Rhythm, Time, and Motion at the University of Oslo (UiO).</div><div style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">This special collection of <i style="box-sizing: inherit;">Music & Science</i> contains 111 articles. They thoroughly describe a particular instantiation of a research concert, namely the innovative and complex event MusicLab Copenhagen. This took place over 14 hours on October 26, 2021, in Copenhagen, Denmark. Working with The Danish String Quartet (DSQ), one of the world's best chamber ensembles, a research team from RITMO, complemented with researchers from several other European institutions, ran experiments and studied how mind and body are engaged during a concert. This was a unique opportunity to capture concurrent qualitative, behavioral, and physiological measurements in a concert hall, delicately balancing the scientific ideals of reliability and ecological validity.</div>
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it