MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

REVIEW | Making Aboriginal Men and Music in Central Australia

2016· article· en· W2561553033 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ann Werner

Bibliographic record

VenueIASPM Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian Indigenous Culture and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gender and issues in ethnicity, race and indigeneity are integral to music cultures, but seem surprisingly seldom addressed critically in ethnomusicology (Chuse 2003).Independent of genre and location, ethnography focusing on structures of power and questions of identity and difference can focus on British punk as well as Sámi rap.In a new monograph, Åse Ottosson addresses aboriginal music culture and masculinity in central Australia, focusing on aboriginal rock, country and reggae by musicians originating from the desert region of the Northern Territory, Australia.Research conducted in the central Australian desert that addresses music culture and gender, as well as indigenous and First Nation identity is scarce.In other locations research questions on gender, music and indigenous identity have been addressed as interlinked: for example, by wellknown scholars like Beverley Diamond (2000) and Tina K. Ramnarine (2013) exploring gender, femininity and indigeneity in First Nations of Canada and Sámi musics.One, of many, interesting contributions in Making Men and Music in Central Australia is the discussion of the diversity within Aboriginal music culture, in particular the different musical practices that are evident in various regions of Australia.The music and musicians, their studio work, touring, performances and backstage practices are mapped within Ottosson's detailed ethnography, and their way of making music is contrasted with Aboriginal music cultures from the top

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASPM JournalSame topicAustralian Indigenous Culture and HistoryFrench-language works237,207