Adolescents' attainability and aspiration beliefs for famous musician role models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the role that adolescents' competence beliefs and subjective task values for music have in relation to their aspirations and expectations for becoming like their musician role models. A total of 381 adolescents (aged 13–14) completed a questionnaire about their competence beliefs and values for music, the musicians they admired and why, and their attainability and aspiration beliefs about becoming like their musician role model. Adolescents' aspiration and attainability beliefs were influenced by their beliefs and values for music; adolescents who played an instrument were more likely than non-players to think they could become like their musician role model, and were more likely than non-players to choose role models who played instruments. The majority of adolescents thought that they could become like their musician role models if they wanted to, with their attainability and aspiration beliefs in relation to musician role models being mediated by their beliefs and value beliefs for music. The findings suggest that because the majority of adolescents' musician role models do not play instruments, they believe that their role models' accomplishments are more attainable, which also increases their aspirations to become like their musician role models. Implications for music educators are discussed in relation to the need for strategies that increase young people's valuing of music played by a wider range of musicians, thereby increasing positive motivation towards youth engagement in music.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".