MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234390792 · doi:10.1386/jpme_00003_1

The judges’ decision is final: Judgement in music talent reality TV and school music education

2019· article· en· W4234390792 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Popular Music Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudgementHabitusMusic educationTasteMusicalMusicologySociocultural evolutionCultural capitalSociologyPsychologyMusic and emotionPedagogyAestheticsMusic historyVisual artsSocial scienceArtEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores music talent reality television (RTV) and conceptualizes it as a site of music education. It also considers whether music talent RTV might magnify sociocultural traits that are less easily detected in other sites of music education. A considerable body of research has developed around RTV, notably from the fields of sociology, media studies, cultural studies and women’s studies. These scholars frequently draw on Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and capital to analyse participant and audience engagements with the genre. Judgement is central to these discussions, particularly in the subgenre of music talent RTV, with several authors showing how taste and distinction are influenced by habitus. Reviewing the RTV literature highlights how certain musics and musicking experiences are judged, and how such judgement can devalue the musical experiences of those young people who are least likely to access school music education. This raises questions for further study about music talent RTV’s relationship with school music education, and for the study of music talent RTV as a music education setting in its own right, but it also highlights themes that warrant consideration in school music education sites, where judgements and their impacts on access and participation are often disguised or unquestioned.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Popular Music EducationSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207