MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913253824 · doi:10.5539/ass.v15n2p60

Motivations and Factors that Contribute to Successful Drumline Groups in Malaysia

2019· article· en· W2913253824 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helmi Rosli

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPopularityDimension (graph theory)Social psychologyPerceptionCompetition (biology)TeamworkValue (mathematics)Applied psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drumline has gained more popularity as an independent percussion group with its new music arrangement and attractive drum groove. It is seen that a quite number of drumline groups have been established in Malaysia as part of music activities such as secondary school and university drumline and community group. However, the insufficient emphasis or highlights has likely created diverse perceptions on the development of drumline groups as they have the tendency to have different reasons for joining a drumline group. Therefore, to further investigate this matter, the study focuses on four subscales of intrinsic motivation of Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), which are (a) Interest-enjoyment dimension, (b) Effort-importance dimension, (c) Value-usefulness dimension, and (d) Pressure-tension dimension. The data is collected using questionnaire, with the consideration of the members’ demographic profile, motivation and factors that contribute to the success of drumline groups, specifically in Malaysia. Based on the findings, majority of the members perceived their interest-enjoyment as a reason to join in the drumline ensemble group. They have an agreement on the fact that drumline is a great activity to participate as it is enjoyable and exciting. Also, it is identified that teamwork, enjoyment, and dedication were among the factors that contribute to successful drumline groups. In general, the members are motivated, despite the lack of sponsorship for drumline event or competition.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207