Musical dialogues: Narrative explorations of Buber's ideas of 'Meeting' and 'Living Center' within the creative musical collaborations of a professional singing group and a children's after-school music program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major influence in the contemporary understanding of dialogue has been Martin Buber's seminal book I and Thou, first published in 1923.In this book Buber points to a relational approach in our interactions with others, with nature and with God.In my own daily interactions I have noticed the profound effects of dialogue, particularly in educational and musical contexts.Musical interactions can be viewed as dialogical, with some of the most meaningful encounters (meetings) occurring with a common understanding of music as living center.That music can be seen as the living center, and that we can find dialogical meeting through music is something that is supported by Buber's philosophy.In exploring moments of meeting and mismeeting, an understanding of how the dialogical values of listening and voicing are realized in musical contexts, and an understanding of the limitless possibilities of dialogue, may be revealed.In this thesis I inquire into the meaning of Buber's ideas of meeting and living center, and seek to understand how these key concepts can be realized in music making environments.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".