What Does the Past Tell Us? A Content Analysis of the First Quarter-Century of the <i>British Journal of Music Therapy</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional journals have a legitimating and sanctioning role in the development of disciplinary knowledge, as well as professional practices and identities. The British Journal of Music Therapy (BJMT) – the only UK-based peer-reviewed music therapy journal – has portrayed research, theory and accounts of practices, reflecting trends and developments in the field of music therapy since 1987. Marking the 25th anniversary of the BJMT and looking into its future development, a content analysis of the journal since its inception (1987–2011) was conducted with the aims of (i) tracing trends and developments of music therapy praxes and professional identities, and (ii) exploring the journal's engagement with disciplinary discourses and practices alongside and beyond those of music therapy. The study provides an overview of the BJMT in terms of 1) paper types, 2) authorship: numbers and professional titles, 3) countries of project sites and countries of authors, 4) sample conditions, sizes and ages, 5) formats of practices, and 6) models and themes. The results show that the majority of the articles published in the BJMT are theoretical, focus on one-to-one sessions, are single authored by music therapists and are UK-focused in terms of authorship, project site and models. This study brings to the fore questions for the future development of music therapy as profession and discipline.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".