MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083895940 · doi:10.1386/ijcm.2.2-3.109_1

The community in music

2009· article· en· W2083895940 on OpenAlex
Wayne Bowman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Community Music · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsk priceWishSociologyMusic festivalPublic relationsMusic educationPsychologyPedagogyAestheticsVisual artsPolitical scienceBusinessArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An understanding of community music requires careful thought about what community means, how it is created and sustained, the kinds of community we wish to create and sustain and why, and how music and education relate to such considerations. Communities are fluid, porous, negotiated affairs: dynamic patterns of human interaction. To understand communities we need to understand the practices that stitch and weave them together. To ask What community? is also to ask What kind of practice?, What kind of people are deemed capable of engaging in it?, What kinds of attitudes, beliefs, and actions does it exist to sustain?, and What kinds of attitudes, beliefs, and actions are necessary to sustain and nourish it? Communities are not just places where we engage in musically educational practices: they are also creations of those practices. It is thus imperative that we consider both the kind of community we presume to serve and the kinds of community that predominate the music(s) we endorse as educational vehicles.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.173 · 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