MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409787554 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-299

A Data-Driven Computational Analysis of Piano Playing Technique Evolution

2025· article· en· W4409787554 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPianoComputer scienceSpeech recognitionAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the father of musical instruments, the piano is commonly used in solo, repertoire, accompaniment and other performance processes.In the process of piano playing, the quality of its sound is closely related to the playing skills.The article analyzes the structural composition of the piano as well as the physical mechanism of sound generation, and summarizes the characteristics of the four elements of piano music, namely pitch, intensity, timbre and duration, on the mathematical basis of the twelve equal temperament laws and the vibration equations of the strings.Subsequently, we analyze the time and frequency domain characteristics of the piano's musical technique evolution, and calculate the main physical parameters that can affect the piano timbre.Finally, based on the theoretical study and characterization, the corresponding result evaluation experiments were conducted.It is concluded that by analyzing the root-mean-square and mean values of the vibration time-domain signals of piano soundboards excited at different points, it can be seen that, for different structures of piano soundboards, there are excitation points that can maximize their vibration signals.At the same time, the time-domain characteristic index crag factor is analyzed, and it is found that there is no obvious pattern in the crag factor value of the vibration signal of the soundboard with different point excitations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207