MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Start-Up Games on School Playgrounds: Instances of Ceremonial Rituals

2014· article· en· W2280622825 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
June Countryman

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSophisticationMusicalVariety (cybernetics)Kinesthetic learningInclusion (mineral)AestheticsPsychologyPedagogyMusical expressionMusic educationSociologyVisual artsSocial psychologyArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study emerged from naturalistic observations of children’s self-initiated musical play on the playgrounds of 14 Canadian schools, part of a three-year project anchored by the broad research question: What is the nature of children’s spontaneous musical expressions during selfdirected play? Seven of the dozens of play start-up procedures documented during these observations are analyzed, using ritual theories from a variety of scholarly orientations to establish that these start-up games are genuine ritual acts. While some theorists identify ritual in every aspect of quotidian life, the author proposes that children’s start-up procedures are ceremonial rituals, examples of what Dissanayake termed as artifying. They are characterized by an extended and reverent focus on the performance of a series of formalized rhythmic, kinesthetic actions, sustained by a shared belief that the process is meaningful. Some of the possible benefits that these startup rituals provide are considered, recognizing that, as with all play scenarios, there are issues of inclusion and exclusion. The author suggests that respectful examinations of children’s musical play culture contribute to the project of revisioning music education practice by offering insights into the richness and sophistication of children’s musicking proclivities and abilities. The author proposes specific pedagogical applications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.017 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Council for Research in Music EducationSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207