MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7143899509 · doi:10.69200/0002004118

The accent of John Lennon 6 : Live performances and studio recordings

2018· article· en· W7143899509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shinji Sato

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress (linguistics)StudioNoise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionJohn Lennon, particularly in singing, and with regard to certain phonemes, uses pronunciations different from those of his native accent.Namely, southern English [ʌ] as well as his native northern [ʊ] for RP /ʌ/, and the American [ ɑ: ] in addition to the British [ ɒ ] for RP / ɒ /, are used (Sato 2015(Sato , 2016(Sato , 2017)).The studies dealt with this issue (mentioned above) all analysed the songs recorded in the studios to be released as records.The aim of this study is to investigate whether there are differences in the use of the variants in his live performances.Auditory analysis is chiefly employed.As the Beatles finished giving concerts in 1966, the number of the songs available for this study is limited.The live performances used for this study include television shows and live recordings for radio programmes as well as performances in concert halls.John Lennon's performances in Toronto in 1969 when he appeared as a member of The Plastic Ono Band are added.The list of the songs and the live performances analysed in this study is at the end of this section.For some live performances, the whole song is not played, or the whole lyrics are not sung.Therefore, the number of the tokens for each version may differ.Comments may be made where necessary.Some words are sung too fast, too short, or too unclear to make reliable judgement.These

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207