Through the looking glass: A researcher’s perspectives on a collaborative music composition project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young Musicians was a multi-year, multi-site research project partnered with the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and the Canadian Music Centre to commission composers to collaborate with teachers and students to write educational music. On-site observations undertaken by the co-author and examined through a pragmatic lens employing Brief Focused Inquiry focused on the contributions of students, teachers and composers to the collaborative music compositions. Students contributed their creativity and knowledge of musical elements and concepts, and they provided feedback to the teachers and composers. Teachers contributed technical, instrumental feedback to the composers and their understanding of musical elements and concepts. Furthermore, they led band rehearsals and played musical instruments with the students. Composers contributed their musical creativity and feedback while undertaking a teacher-like role. The composers, teachers and students also used technology during this creative endeavor. The findings will be of potential interest to post-secondary music educators, composers, music teachers, and music publishers.
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 | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".