The <i>Journal of Music Teacher Education</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyzed each article published in 20 years (1991–2011) of the Journal of Music Teacher Education ( N = 282 articles) for possible changes across 5-year increments. All articles were examined by type of article, research methodologies used, and topics discussed. Nonrefereed articles included Society for Music Teacher Education chair and Journal of Music Teacher Education editor commentaries ( n = 77), and occasional statements by Music Educators National Conference (MENC)/National Association for Music Education (NAfME) officers ( n = 3). Peer-reviewed articles were classified as research articles ( n = 85), interest articles ( n = 99), and book reviews ( n = 18). Results showed a distinct increase in numbers of both quantitative ( n = 51) and qualitative ( n = 34 including historical) research articles over time with most appearing in the fourth quarter. Overall, more interest articles appeared ( n = 99), but the number decreased across each 5-year increment. Numbers of book reviews declined steadily. Analysis of specific topics revealed that curriculum, teaching techniques, and professional development were most frequently discussed but varied by type of article and methodology.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".