“The Presentation”: an intensive arts-based rite of passage adapted for the training of Music Therapists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is firstly a story, told by both my students and myself. It started with my question: can arts other than music be used by Music Therapy students to negotiate uncertainties which arise at the threshold of entering into their new therapist community? A rite of passage from Expressive Arts Therapy in Toronto and Switzerland was transplanted into an Australian Music Therapy course. What emerged was truly magical. The students began by asking themselves defining questions… where am I now?…where do I want to be? They let art-works emerge from their growing edges to provide sometimes surprising answers. They then formed small groups and allowed the art-works to interact to create a Presentation - a ritual day of exchanging art-gifts. Their written reflections help illustrate the story. They describe “openness to possibilities”, “unexpectedness”, “like flying”, “a healing process”, “belonging”, “reverence”. Afterwards, in my own reflections, I attempt to grapple with the significance of such experiences in which we enter, through art-making, into the realm of “poiesis”. Are they vital to counterbalance the evidence-based approaches to knowing? What are the ramifications for an inquiry-based Music Therapy practice which values “not-knowing”? Can we deepen our courage to dwell in the discomfort of not-knowing while knowing finds us?
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".