The Prosumer and the Project Studio: The Battle for Distinction in the Field of Music Recording
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using participant observation and content analysis of musicians’ internet newsgroups and bulletin boards, my research examines the creation of a new socio-historic subject (‘the prosumer’) and space of production (‘the project studio’). Prosumers’ practices illustrate a nondeterministic form of structural causation that both supports and refutes Bourdieu’s theory of cultural/social (re)production. In support of Bourdieu, my empirical research illustrates the relative autonomy of the habitus and shows that cultural production can foster social change. Although Bourdieu repeatedly made such theoretical claims, his struggle to empirically support them led critics to characterize his work as a synchronously reproductive form of economic reductionism. While I reject these critiques, my work does problematize Bourdieu’s understanding of ‘capital conversion’ and complicates his somewhat ‘straightforward’ relation of cultural practice to economic class. Such ‘relations and conversions’ presuppose clearly separated economic/cultural and productive/ consumptive social spheres. Since ‘prosumption’ blurs these demarcations, we must subsequently reassess aspects of Bourdieu’s work.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".