MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333450920 · doi:10.1177/1048371313495873

Repetitions and Contrasts

2013· article· en· W2333450920 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeneral Music Today · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnit (ring theory)Context (archaeology)Repetition (rhetorical device)Computer scienceMathematics educationPsychologyLinguisticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, an approach to unit plans using essential questions is described within the context of general music education and illustrated in the unit Repetition and Contrasts: Understanding Music Through Form. This unit is founded on the essential question: As musicians, how do we use form to organize and understand music? Learning guideposts provide direction and impetus for the essential questions on which the unit is founded. Learning guideposts detailed for this unit include content and materials, processes, culminating project/performance, and propensities. Summaries of lessons illustrate how the ideas presented in this framework transfer to daily instruction. Student assessment is embedded within lessons from multiple perspectives denoted as assessment for learning, assessment as learning, and assessment of learning.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.174 · 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