MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779878950 · doi:10.5539/hes.v8n1p1

Use of Extended Flute Techniques in Flute Education in Turkey

2017· article· en· W2779878950 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ajda Şenol Sakin

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMusic Education and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluteTurkishPsychologyMathematics educationAcousticsLinguisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extended flute techniques, which are frequently found in contemporary flute literature, carry the flute to a different dimension, pushing the boundaries of composers and performers. Although the number of pieces containing these techniques in the world has increased rapidly, along with Turkish flute repertoire, written Turkish sources about extended flute techniques are limited to theses and articles. In this research, the use of extended flute techniques in flute education programmes in Turkey was investigated. A survey method was used in the research, and 20 teaching staff members participated in the survey by answering the questionnaire. As a result of the research, it was determined that 18 teaching staff members included extended flute techniques in their flute education programmes, and 2 teaching staff members did not use these techniques in flute education, particularly because “the techniques and pieces do not accord with the levels of the students” and because of “the difficulty of the pieces”. In the conclusion, the difficulties faced by the teaching staff during training in extended flute techniques are summarized, and the suggestions of the teaching staff are mentioned.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicMusic Education and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207