MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161754494 · doi:10.1017/s0265051706006930

The influence of governmental control and early Christian missionaries on music education of Aborigines in Taiwan

2006· article· en· W2161754494 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angela Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Music Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHong Kong and Taiwan Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMusic educationSingingProtectorateHymnGovernment (linguistics)History of musicColonialismPoliticsHistoryMusicologyDanceMusic historySociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceSocial scienceVisual artsPedagogyLiteratureArtLawArchaeologyManagementLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been little research conducted on Taiwanese Aboriginal music education in comparison to Aboriginal education. C. Hsu's Taiwanese Music History (1996) presents information on Aboriginal music including instruments, dance, ritual music, songs and singing, but information on music education practices is lacking. The examination of historical documentation shows that music education was used by both the Japanese government and Christian missionaries to advance their political and religious agendas. This paper will examine the development of the music education of Aborigines in Taiwan from the mid nineteenth century, when Christian missionaries first came to Taiwan, until the end of the Japanese protectorate (1945). I shall discuss how the missionaries from Britain and Canada successfully introduced Western religious music to Aboriginal communities by promoting various activities such as hymn singing and religious services. The paper will then look at the influence of government policy on Aboriginal music education during the colonial periods. These policies affected both the music taught in elementary schools and the teaching materials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Music EducationSame topicHong Kong and Taiwan PoliticsFrench-language works237,207