Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter seeks to expand on theorizations and research concerning the modes and means by which musicians craft lives for themselves. Based on an ethnographic dissertation featuring the perspectives of 24 ‘indie’ musicians in Toronto, Canada, this chapter explores the notion of metamusical creativity as a more holistic means of discussing the exploration and formation of musical lifestyles. Following a critical analysis of eminent philosophy and research of music education, creativity, musical success, and portfolio careers, data from participant interviews are discussed in relation to the phenomenon at hand. Several conclusions are drawn from the analysis of the participants’ stories and experiences: (1) discourses pertaining to ‘careers’ and ‘creativity’ ought to include perspectives of musicians not affiliated with or impacted by higher music education; (2) a preoccupation with encouraging students to develop full-time musical ‘careers’ – portfolio or otherwise – may be detrimental to the students themselves as well as the broader landscape of musical pursuits; and (3) those who endeavour to guide others’ musical futures should focus on the development of individually meaningful creativities, such that music can remain a vibrant and viable aspect of any life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".