Identifying outlier scores and outlier jurors to reduce manipulation in classical music competitions

Author:

Kontek KrzysztofORCID,Kenner KevinORCID

Abstract

AbstractManipulations in classical music competitions are a proven problem that has as yet not been eradicated from the competition practice. Several examples are provided. We aim to compare and analyze different methods of reducing manipulation in classical music competitions, focusing on outlier scores and on outlier jurors. First, we investigate the typical approach of correcting or discarding individual jurors' scores that significantly deviate from the mean or median of scores received by a given candidate. We then introduce a new method that involves the exclusion of outlier jurors (EOJ). This approach implies that all scores of jurors with ratings that substantially differ from those of other jurors are removed and not taken into account when determining the ranking of candidates. The properties of both approaches are discussed in hypothetical voting scenarios, where one or more jurors assign scores that deviate markedly from those awarded by other jurors. Finally, we present examples of applying various methods to real-world data from classical music competitions, demonstrating the potential effectiveness and implications of each approach in reducing manipulation within these events. Two examples are taken from the International Karol Szymanowski Music Competition, which took place in September 2023 in Katowice, Poland, where EOJ was adopted for the first time as the official scoring system in four competition categories: piano, violin, vocal, and string quartet.

Funder

Narodowe Centrum Nauki

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)

Reference32 articles.

1. Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values (2nd edition on 1963). Wiley.

2. Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K., & Suzumura, K. (2002). Handbook of social choice and welfare (Vol. 1). Elsevier.

3. Asmat, R., Borowiecki, K. J., & Law, M. T. (2023). Do experts and laypersons differ? Some evidence from international classical music competitions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 214, 270–290.

4. Austen-Smith, D., & Banks, J. S. (2002). Positive political theory. The University of Michigan Press.

5. Balinski, M., & Laraki, R. (2010). Majority judgment: Measuring, ranking, and electing. The MIT Press.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3