MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083177681 · doi:10.1525/mp.2025.2488483

Continuous Response to Perceived Affective Intentions in Music Listening

2025· article· en· W7083177681 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMusic Perception An Interdisciplinary Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningValence (chemistry)PerceptionMusicalArousalMusic psychologyMusic and emotion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perception of affective intentions in music is a complex, yet commonplace, phenomenon that is influenced by listeners’ experience with different musical traditions and the style of the music. This study explores the continuous responses of listeners to a piece of Chinese orchestral music and how their musical backgrounds influence affective responses, as well as the acoustic and musical features used in the perception of affective intentions. Three groups of listeners (trained in Chinese and Western art music traditions and nonmusicians) were presented with a 15.5-minute piece of music and responded continuously on a unidimensional emotional intensity scale and a two-dimensional valence and arousal interface in separate blocks. Functional data analysis compared differences between listener groups’ response profiles. Time series analysis explored how each listener group utilized different acoustic and musical features over the course of the music. Results show significant differences between listener groups over different sections of the music. Valence responses diverge more than arousal or emotional intensity responses. The perception of affective intentions in music is influenced by the degree of familiarity listeners have with a musical tradition, the content implicated in the music, and the complex sonic environment created by the composer’s creation and the musicians’ interpretation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusic Perception An Interdisciplinary JournalSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207