MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W189157995

Music Therapy Research: Contributions from Canada/Recherche En Musicothérapie : L'apport Canadien

2007· article· fr· W189157995 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barbara L. Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of music therapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMusic therapyPresentation (obstetrics)Statement (logic)PsychologyMedicineEpistemologyPsychotherapist
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is adapted from keynote address, Staying on the Crest with Music Therapy Research, presented at the Canadian Association of Music Therapy Conference in Victoria in May, 2007.1 reviewed great deal of Canadian research in an effort to understand how research fits into the culture of Canadian music therapy, and found an impressive diversity and quantity of this research. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate these characteristics of Canadian music therapy research.Definition of ResearchBefore we can discuss specific research contributions, we must define research. Bruscia (1995) defined research as a systematic, self-monitored which leads to discovery or new insight which, when documented and disseminated, contributes to or modifies existing knowledge or practice (p. 21). Gfeller (1995) described research as a disciplined or systematic inquiry (p. 29) and cited definition of it as a carefully organized procedure that can result in the discovery of new knowledge, the substantiation of previously held concepts, the rejection of false tenets that have been widely acclaimed, and the formal presentation of data collected (Phelps, Ferrara & Goolsby, as cited in Gfeller, 1995, p. 29).Rainbow & Froelich (1987) suggest that research includes four basic steps: (a) clear statement of purpose and the delineation of the specific aspects under investigation; (b) methodology that is clearly described and justified; (c) report of the results; and (d) conclusions that are subsequendy related to existing knowledge.These definitions make it clear that not everything that music therapists do is research, although they may have features in common with research. When therapists observe clients' responses in music therapy, for example, they use observational techniques that might be used in research, but are not truly doing research. In this situation the focus ia on improving work clinical work (or the client's condition) rather than to contribute to or modify existing knowledge or practice, as Bruscia's definition suggests.Questions and Types of ResearchResearch flows from the questions that we ask. Most music therapy questions suggest research method or approach that is appropriate to answer or explore them. While some people begin their research with particular method in mind, it is probably better to begin with the question. Some examples of questions that lead to quantitative or qualitative research designs are presented here.Quantitative ResearchDescriptive. One might ask,How does X influence client during the process of therapy? where X could be variations in the tempo, volume, tonality, or another aspect of an improvisation; the type of instrument used; or things that are happening in the client's life outside of music therapy.Examples of descriptive research in music therapy could include studies that are based on surveys and questionnaires, single subject designs that rely on numerical data to determine the results, and studies of groups of people that use quantitative measures of outcomes but do not include control group for comparison.Experimental. One might ask, Does X treatment work better than Y treatment? X and Y could be music therapy and another creative arts therapy, for example, or music therapy in combination with language therapy versus music therapy alone.In experimental research two or more treatment conditions are compared and random assignment of participants to conditions is preferred. These are standard experimental designs that answer questions about the effectiveness of music therapy. They are often requested by those who determine what therapy should be supported or paid for.Qualitative ResearchIn qualitative research, one might ask, What is it that takes place between the client and the therapist during the process of therapy that makes the therapy powerful (or emotional, or life-changing) experience? …

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.000

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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.066 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of music therapySame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207