Bibliographic record
Abstract
Singing is usually an enjoyable activity but not to those who have labelled themselves as non-singers. The purpose of this research is to identify why there are societal members who self-designate as non-singers, if this perception may be altered, and what implications are applicable to the music profession. Narrative inquiry methodology was utilized in this study of adult non-singers. Through the lens of narrative methodology, four themes emerged. The first theme is negative childhood experiences of singing adversely affected participation in singing and their concept of self as singer. The majority of participants described this childhood experience as a negative interaction with a teacher. The second theme is there was a strong negative emotional connection between childhood singing experiences and self-perception later in life. The third theme is the participants have internalized the negative emotional outcome of these childhood experiences causing this perception of themselves as non-singers. Finally, there was a complete belief in the authority figure’s proclamation. Participants fully committed to the authority figure’s proclamation about their singing ability. The idea that negative comments made by teachers have the potential for longevity in a student’s life needs to be evaluated by music educators. This research is advocating for an awareness of the individual and an acceptance of their level in the musical spectrum. Students will not all be at the same musical level but all will develop from their point of initiation. This phenomenon, unfortunately, is still apparent in this new millennium and is affecting music learning through singing in today’s students.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".