Talking ‘Privilege’: barriers to musical attainment in adolescents’ talk of musical role models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a discursive approach, this study explores the ways that adolescents construct the notion of social status and ‘being privileged’ through their talk about musician role models. Drawing on social identity theory (see Tajfel, 1978), we examined how adolescents moved between the relational ‘in’ and ‘out’ groups of being privileged versus being disadvantaged as a framework for discussing classical and popular musician role models. Seven focus groups were conducted, each composed of male and female adolescent musicians and non-musicians aged 14–15 years. Participants were asked to discuss 19 pictures of famous classical and popular musicians, commenting on whether they were familiar or unfamiliar figures, and whether they were liked or disliked and the reasons why. Through their talk, the adolescents constructed and negotiated a complex understanding of musical subcultures, whereby high levels of expertise and success were perceived within the notion of privilege. Findings suggest that adolescents' perceptions of privilege may act as a barrier or constraint to their exploration of alternative conceptualisations of musical expertise and success, thereby limiting their own musical aspirations.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".