An Historical Study of the First Year of the Canadian Association of Music Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a historical narrative of the inaugural year (1974/75) of the Canadian Association of Music Therapists (CAMT). The purpose of the study was to examine music therapists’ lived experiences of the first year of the CAMT concomitantly with primary source documents published between the first two CAMT conferences (August 3, 1974 and May 2, 1975, respectively). The primary research question was: What are the experiences of music therapists who were involved in the CAMT during its inaugural year? The secondary research question was: How do primary source historical documents from the first year of the CAMT relate to the experiences of the participants? I combined phenomenological and historical methodologies in this qualitative interview study. I interviewed three Canadian music therapists who were active during 1974/75. The experiences they shared in their interviews were related to primary source historical documents the researcher obtained from the CAMT historical archives. Three primary themes emerged from the data analysis: “developing identity,” “defining music therapy/music therapist,” and “emerging alternative profession.” This study offers information about significant conflicts, issues, and developments in the early CAMT that was previously missing from the historical literature on Canadian music therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".