MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409603772 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-206

Analysis and optimization of pitch change patterns in double bass performance based on weighted clustering algorithm

2025· article· en· W4409603772 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The double bass, as the instrument with the lowest timbre and the largest volume in the string section of a symphony orchestra, is the "mainstay" of the orchestra's acoustic effect, and grasping the bass performance mode in double bass performance is a problem that all double bass players need to explore in depth.A cluster-weighted multi-view kernel k-means clustering model ( CWK2M) is proposed to study the local quality differences of the bass performance score views at the cluster level.The proposed weighted multiview clustering algorithm is then compared with several multiview clustering algorithms on several real multiview data for experiments and analysis of pitch change patterns.The experimental results show that, on the whole, the proposed algorithm in this paper obtains a relatively good clustering effect on each multiview data, especially on the Sens IT dataset of bass performance scores, the performance of each metrics is significantly improved, and the precision, recall, F1 value and NMI metrics are 0.632, 0.653, 0.687, and 0.713, respectively.In addition, the algorithm of this paper is utilized for the three bass playing patterns such as TaS1, Py11 and Mla1 are further analyzed, which further validates the universality and performance effect of the improved weighted clustering algorithm proposed in this paper for the analysis of pitch change patterns in bass playing.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207