E-Publishing in the Undergraduate Music History Classroom: The University of Guelph Book Review Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
0 0 1 271 1546 Depauw University 12 3 1814 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE Perhaps one of the least anticipated and yet most fundamental skills undergraduate educators must nurture in their students is that of effective writing. Over the past three years, Critical Voices: The University of Guelph Book Review Project , a project that combines open-access journal technology with the dynamics of peer-review publication, has successfully worked to address this task in upper-level, undergraduate classrooms at three universities in Canada and the United States. Using the Critical Voices project as an example, this essay explores the pedagogical value of requiring undergraduate students in music history courses to write for a public audience, a more common occurrence in the social and natural sciences than in the humanities. Furthermore, by describing the process by which the project was established and the guidelines that participating institutions follow throughout the semester-long publication cycle, we outline the potential challenges instructors might face when attempting to integrate such projects into their own courses. Finally, through a discussion of the ways in which external institutions have engaged with the Critical Voices project, we suggest that collaborative, student-driven projects such as this offer valuable, low-cost opportunities for music students for international collaboration, an increasing need in an era of decreasing resources. We would like to consider the innovative potential this project holds for the musicological discipline as a whole. Indeed, in drawing our observations and methodologies into dialogue, we argue our work presents a cost-effective means of introducing currently uncommon para- and proto-professional training into the humanities classroom, the results of which would also have an impact on musicological research in general.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".