MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116840290 · doi:10.1177/1321103x09344383

Listening to children’s music perspectives: in- and out-of-school thoughts

2009· article· en· W2116840290 on OpenAlexaff
Shelley M. Griffin

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Studies in Music Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningNarrativeSituatedMusic educationPsychologyAudio equipmentEthnographyPedagogyCurriculumDevelopmental psychologySociologyLinguisticsCommunicationAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Findings are presented from a three-month, two-phase study inquiring into the music experiences of 20 Grade 2/3 children (seven to eight year olds), both in- and out-of-school. The article highlights the music experiences of three children who were drawn from the group of 20. Situated within the theoretical underpinnings of social constructionism, experience and attentive listening, a framework of ethnography and narrative inquiry was utilized to create and interpret fictionalized narratives crafted in the form of ongoing dialogues between the researcher and participants. The children’s tales offered insightful understandings relating to the influences that shape children’s music experiences. Conversations indicated a recognizable lack of interplay of music experiences between in- and out-of-school. These tales reveal possibilities for how music educators may re/conceptualize ways in which children’s voices may be centrally embedded within elementary music curricula.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.294
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.144 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Studies in Music EducationSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207