MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608523299

Analysis of the Inheritance and Development of Original Ecology Music

2015· article· en· W1608523299 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Musicological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologySingingDignityVariety (cybernetics)SociologyAestheticsEnvironmental ethicsArtBiologyPolitical scienceLawComputer sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Original ecology music is a hot topic in music and even in the cultural sector in recent years. With the rising and widespread concern of original ecology music, in terms of what original ecology music is, it remains controversial among experts. However, this term has entered into public view through a variety of media spread. China is a country with a broad area and man ethnic groups. With the impact of modern culture, to maintain the scenes of life in original ecology music also preserves more original ecology music. Singing folk songs are a form of life and the singers’ lives are changing over the time. They also have dreams and ideals to pursue, especially in today’s commercial society. When they are the advantages to change and improve their life through their singing, there are no reasons to stop their wishes and actions. Art is beyond life. The reality of art is not equal to the reality of life. Although original ecology music on stage is glamorous, the truth behind this is the rapid loss of original ecology music with time and productive way changing. Only traditions that the nation inherits and enshrines together can make our living meaningful and with dignity. To have its own traditions and be proud of its own traditions is the way to make a nation continuous and growing. To protect our traditions, retain and protect the original ecology is to protect our future.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicDiverse Musicological StudiesFrench-language works237,207