Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large ensembles (e.g., choirs-orchestras-bands) have become prominent fixtures in most secondary schools and university schools/faculties of music in Canada and the United States. At the secondary school level, large ensembles have become, in effect, practically synonymous with the words “music education.” This paper derives from my own experience with and interest in wind bands as a means of enacting music education. Specifically, I interrogate, through a Foucaultian discourse lens, the kind of relationship with music fostered in and through what I term the pedagogical band world—the world comprising school and college/university wind bands that has developed from around the middle of the twentieth century. Based on an intensive examination of pedagogical band world discourse and a consideration of the historical appearance and evolution of bands, I argue that as bands became entrenched as the primary medium for music instruction in secondary schools (and concurrently became a major component of university schools/faculties of music), and as education increasingly became the target of state concerns over “progress,” the discourse of band performance changed from one of supplying music in order to create a sense of community and personal enjoyment to one of edification through exposure to Art (i.e., great repertoire).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".