Bibliographic record
Abstract
This theoretical article explores philosophical roots of the interpretive task in music therapy. Drawing from creativity practices and interpretation traditions such as philosophical hermeneutics, the author focuses on Gadamer’s concept of dialogue in the understanding of art. Distancing itself from the objective-subjective dichotomy of the scientific model, the truth of the artwork is viewed as participative, as it always requires an encounter, a form of presence. As clinicians, it encourages us to recognize and make the most of our own sensible response to music. Art therapist Shaun McNiff advocates for a temporary suspension of clinical meaning in order to expand the interpretive possibilities in creative art therapies. The patient’s creation is viewed as an Other, complex and mysterious, which whom we are invited to relate. Through a clinical example, this paper examines how we understand and respond to our client’s music. The notions of “intuition in the act” (Kimura) and “being played” (Gadamer) show that along with our conscious decisions and interventions, we also follow the movement of music itself. Therefore, its meaning tends to transcend the materiality and the personality and connects us to our human condition. It is an invitation to open our hearts, listen deeply and respond creatively to the music played in therapy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".