Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.Research on listeners’ perceived emotions draws on human performance of naturalistic as well as computer-generated synthetic stimuli. While synthetic stimuli have been shown to convey emotions, studies comparing them directly to human performances are few. Similarly, while research has often relied on pitch randomization, its effect on listeners’ perceived emotions remains to be investigated. The lack of research on the influence of these two methods for generating musical stimuli raises issues of reliability and generalization of findings. Here, we report the results of two experiments designed to test the influence of synthetic and pitch-randomized stimuli. In Experiment 1, we investigated the effects of production mode (human vs. synthetic) and instrumentation (piano vs. string quartet) using naturalistic excerpts rated along five emotional dimensions: mood, energy, movement, dissonance, and tension. In Experiment 2, we used the same synthetic piano excerpts from Experiment 1 presented in original and pitch-randomized variants. Overall findings show main effects of production mode, instrumentation, and pitch presentation. To explore the influence of musical structure, pitch and rhythm features were extracted and compared with listeners’ ratings of emotional dimensions. Several features were reliable predictors of participants’ perceived emotions, supporting the need for considering finer-grain structural features of naturalistic stimuli.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".