MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281621847 · doi:10.7203/leeme.49.24249

Actividades musicales en escuelas infantiles de Hong Kong: Análisis de contenido de los informes de Revisión de Calidad

2022· article· en· W4281621847 on OpenAlexaff
Yan-Lam Ho, Alfredo Bautista

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Electrónica de LEEME · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityCurriculumPsychologySingingMusic educationNational curriculumMusicalPedagogyHumanitiesArtVisual artsSocial psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Hong Kong, the Education Bureau (EDB) assesses the quality of services provided to children in local kindergartens. Quality Review (QR) reports of kindergartens that pass the assessment are published on EDB’s website. We conducted a content analysis of 164 QR reports to examine the alignment between the music activities alluded to and the curriculum objectives established for music in official policies. A coding scheme was developed using both inductive and deductive approaches. High inter-reliability was obtained. MAXQDA was used to conduct word frequency, descriptive, and co-occurrence analyses. The most common terms identified in the music-related segments focused on children’s development of sensory abilities through music experiences, in relation to singing, rhythm, beat, movement, and instrumental music. However, activities intended to foster musical creativity and self-expression were seldom mentioned. We conclude that the QR reports reveal important discrepancies between official curriculum policies and actual classroom practices, which EDB assessors seemed to ignore or overlook. Implications focus on the need for kindergarten stakeholders to address curriculum/practice gaps and further prepare teachers to foster children’s musical creativity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Electrónica de LEEMESame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207