MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135725257 · doi:10.1177/1057083712467637

The <i>Journal of Music Teacher Education</i>

2012· article· en· W2135725257 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janice N. Killian, Jing Liu, John F. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Music Teacher Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMusic educationCurriculumQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyLibrary sciencePedagogyMathematics educationHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0280.031
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Music Teacher EducationSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207