Meaningful Connections in a Comprehensive Approach to the Music Curriculum
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive music curriculum is characterized by breadth and depth of musical experience. Curricular breadth involves planning for students' participation in a wide range of musical engagements (singing, playing, composing, improvising, listening, moving, evaluating); exposure to a broad repertoire of works, styles, and genres; and emphasis on the ways that music is organized and constructed through its distinctive elements and forms. Depth of musical understanding comes from pursuing a well-chosen sample of these engagements, music, and elements with regularity and intensity. Through a curriculum that offers both breadth and depth, students become aware of the vast possibilities for lifelong involvement which music affords, and gain the keen satisfaction of knowing some music well. This article begins by addressing key concepts that support a principled foundation for interdisciplinary work in music, and next clarifies distinctions among common terms used to refer to curricular schemes for organizing a connected curriculum. Principles that can be used to guide curricular decisions are provided. The article then explores interdisciplinary work in music from the perspective of (1) the teacher, (2) the learner, (3) the overall curriculum, and (4) approaches and models for generating and organizing interdisciplinary experiences. Whenever possible, it supplements its North American perspective (the US and Canada) with select examples that reflect a more international scope.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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 it