Music Making Interventions with Adults in the Forensic Setting – A Systematic Review of the Literature – Part II: Case Studies and Good vibrations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review of international research is to summarize the available literature on active music making interventions with adult offenders in forensic settings (i.e. forensic psychiatry or correctional facilities at different security levels). A systematic search of 13 electronic databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analysis (PRISMA) statement was employed. 28 articles fitting the inclusion criteria were included in the review. The search revealed mainly qualitative and narrative reports including articles on group music therapy, educational music making, choir interventions, individual music therapy sessions and musical projects. The musical interventions are described in detail to provide therapists with ideas on how to set up session with clients who may be in this particular situation and to help them understand the possible impact of musical interventions in the forensic setting. Furthermore, implications from the current evidence and ideas for future research are discussed. Note: Due to the length of the review it is published in two subsequent issues. This is the second part of the review focusing on case studies and the Good Vibrations program. The first part of the review was published in the previous issue of Music and Medicine focusing on group interventions.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it