MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088291480 · doi:10.7202/1014314ar

Whither our Undergraduate Core Curriculum in Theory?

2013· article· en· W2088291480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Murray Dineen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian University Music Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftCurriculumArgument (complex analysis)Curriculum studiesPoeticsCurriculum theorySociologyEpistemologyPedagogyPhilosophyCurriculum developmentArtPoetryLinguisticsVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the author considers three aspects of the core curriculum: the mixture of poetics (the craft of music making) and apologetics (the argument for a canon of masterworks), the theoretical training of literate musicians, and the vehicles for bringing about curriculum change. Within this framework, the author addresses the theory text of Edward Aldwell and Carl Schachter, as well as essays by Christopher Lewis, Richard Wollheim, James Clifford, and Estelle Jorgensen. The author finds in the present curriculum an uncomfortable balance of craft and argument, and an orientation toward rote learning of a canon rather than a critical approach to knowledge skills. He finds as well little or no scholarly mechanism for curriculum development.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian University Music ReviewSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207