Bibliographic record
Abstract
The status of popular music research in North American ethnomusicology has changed significantly in the last 25 years. Expanding rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, popular music research in ethnomusicology was part of a set of broader intellectual developments that challenged the liberal inclusionism that dominated the discipline during this period, developments that, as other writers have observed, included the growing prominence of critical approaches to humanistic inquiry, new ideas about media and culture, and the rise of the neoliberal university. This article tracks the shifting reception of popular music research in ethnomusicology during this period and the place that this work held in these wider transformations. Taking institutional history as its starting point, the article discusses the position of ethnomusicology among other music disciplines in the North American academy, the debates that surrounded the formation of the Popular Music Section of the Society for Ethnomusicology (PMSSEM) and the relationship between PMSSEM and the International Association for the Study of Popular Music. Examining the interplay between residual and emergent elements of intellectual culture in today’s discipline, the article explores the reciprocities and tensions between liberal inclusionism and radical cultural critique, the ethnomusicologist’s productive resistance to defining the notion of popular music, the charges of ethnocentrism that have recently been levelled at the ethnomusicology of popular music, and the differing approaches to the question of populism at play in contemporary ethnomusicology’s politics of culture.
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 | 0.050 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.150 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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 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".