When quantity is not enough: Disentangling the roles of practice time, self-regulation and deliberate practice in musical achievement
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has referred to either the concepts of self-regulation or deliberate practice to explain the relationships between learning strategies and musical achievement and performance. In addition, even though most scholars agree that formal practice time plays an important role in musical achievement, empirical investigations have failed to show consistent associations between practice time and achievement. The aim of this article is to suggest an integrative framework in which self-regulation, deliberate practice strategies and practice time are simultaneously taken into account in the prediction of musical achievement. In this framework, we propose that formal practice should be defined as a goal-directed and focused period of practice that includes both self-regulation and deliberate practice strategies. We further posit that practice time will predict musical achievement only if associated with formal practice. This integrative framework was tested in a 4-month prospective study using structural equation modelling. Results revealed that this integrative model was a better predictor of musical achievement than traditional methods of measurement. The suggested integration of self-regulation and deliberate practice within a single framework provides a more complete picture of the associations between learning strategies, practice time and musical achievement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it