Bibliographic record
Abstract
x e x é:yltholetsel te sqwà:ls te'íle tl'ekwelep tél:exwatlha ye s'í:wes shxwélméxwelh. x éy x ewetholetsel. ólew híth kw'elsu ó:lmethome. eyeléwthelh. tl'élexw kw'a's qel í:weselep. éy kw's totí:ltset, lheqtó:léstexwtset te syó:ys te í. ewe qelélweselep. xwelítem skwukwelstéleq talhwélep, maytólxwchapcha (xwélmexw, lets'ô:lmexw) tlowáyél, qas te wáy:eles. This letter describes some of the foundation and basic structural changes that must be implemented by music programs in order to move toward decolonial forms of music education. The letter serves as one starting point for such change among many that must always be led by Indigenous, Black, Latinx, Asian and other scholars / artists of colour (IBPOC) who live and work in the locations where music programs are based. Community-led change is imperative in order to avoid the replication of normative systems of music education that merely include diverse content. The letter asserts that while curricular change and hiring of IBPOC scholars constitute one part of this change, it might also be understood as a form of additive inclusion. Models of additive inclusion proceed by placing diverse content within normative, white supremacist structures of pedagogy that remain unchanged. Additive inclusion consequently maintains the power of those who choose what content to include, rather than giving over space for IBPOC leadership to determine the parameters for change, and to determine how foundational structures of music education should be dismantled and renewed.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.130 | 0.116 |
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".