Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to globalization we live in a global culture which includes sharing and creating genres of music. “World music” is a phenomenon that began in the 80s. This genre, amongst other things, blends popular Western musical characteristics with non-Western musics which has rejuvenated popular music in the West. However, the term “world music” is difficult to grapple. “World music” cannot be described as a genre completely outside of the Euro-American mainstream. The music of our global culture is largely thought to be dominated by the cultural imperialism of the West. Nevertheless, this model does not encompass the extent of the control ‘foreign’ musical aspects of the “world music” genre are exerting on Western popular culture. Therefore, the co-option of “world music” by the West is being reversed.
 The popularity of “world music” is rising in Western popular culture. There are increasing amounts of “world music” resources becoming available and the “classicization of world music” is apparent in various trends. While “world music” depends on Western markets, these markets are dependent on non-Western music to diversify and provide products displaying the lack of control the West has on the genre it created. The roles have been reversed and “world music” is in the process of co-opting Western popular music.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".