Influences of different string types on the perception of violin qualities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brand and model of strings used on violins are considered to play an important role in their playability and sound quality. An experiment was designed to test whether and how violin players perceive changes in violin qualities when strung with different strings. Three models of strings were chosen for this study: Dominant, Kaplan, and Pro-Arté strings. Two violins with similar sound and playing qualities were selected and professional and advanced student violinists were invited to play and compare the violins in two locations: Oberlin, Ohio and Montreal, Canada. Both violins were initially strung with Dominant strings and subjects rated the differences between the two (violin 2 compared to violin 1) according to eight criteria. Then, the strings of violin 2 were changed to a different type and the subjects again rated the differences between the two violins. In Oberlin, subjects compared Dominant and Kaplan strings in two sessions. In Montreal, subjects compared Dominant, Kaplan, and Pro-Arté strings in three trials. No statistically significant results in the perception of the string type differences were found in either location except that violin 2 was found to be significantly brighter with Dominant strings compared to Pro-Arté strings in the Montreal experiment.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".