MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7155180296 · doi:10.7202/1124289ar

Finding a Fingerprint. Microtiming and Tempo Variability in Five Renowned Rock Drummers

2025· article· en· W7155180296 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David S. Carter, Ralf von Appen

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue musicale OICRM · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)StudioStyle (visual arts)Absolute (philosophy)Beat (acoustics)Correlation coefficient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we analyze microtiming and tempo variability in the music of five renowned rock drummers: Ringo Starr, Mitch Mitchell, Stewart Copeland, Phil Rudd, and Meg White. Using the applications Moises and Sonic Visualiser, we isolated the drum stems of 79 studio and live recordings and determined exact quarter-note positions in backbeat patterns. We used metrics such as the normalized absolute deviation beat sum, average beat coefficient of variation, and tempo coefficient of variation in order to capture these drummers’ distinctive “fingerprints.” We found that Starr showed a propensity for delayed backbeats and slowing down, Copeland a tendency for early backbeats, Rudd steadiness without a click track, and Mitchell and White a propensity towards wide variability in timing and tempo. The results of this exploratory study suggest that drumming characteristics are shaped not only by personal style but also by broader historical trends.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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 venueRevue musicale OICRMSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207