MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162534901 · doi:10.1177/0255761406069639

Dancing composition: pedagogy and philosophy as experience

2006· article· en· W2162534901 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Gould

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Music Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposition (language)DanceMusicalPhilosophy of musicConstruct (python library)Musical compositionMusic educationPhilosophy of educationSociologyPedagogyAestheticsEpistemologyPsychologyVisual artsMusic historyArtPhilosophyLiteratureHigher educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For philosopher Gilles Deleuze, the work of philosophy consists of affirmatively and artistically creating and reworking concepts in response to real-life problems in an ongoing process that invites new perspectives and ways of thinking. Carol Matthews's music composition pedagogical practices reflect these processes, arguing that they demonstrate the philosophical construct called ‘philosophy as experience.’ Through interaction – or dance – Matthews and her students in Primaries (grades K–1, approximately 5–7 years old) and Juniors (grades 2–3, approximately 8–10 years old) engage in philosophy by making informed, mindful musical decisions in response to lived musical problems in the material process of composing two songs, ‘Plants, Plants' by the Primaries and ‘Remembering Flight’ by the Juniors. Empirically enacting philosophy as experience, Matthews's practices and her students' responses reveal ways of thinking and being related to teaching and learning music composition that may inform the practices of other music educators and students, with implications for music teacher preparation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Music EducationSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207