The Benefits of New Horizons Band Participation as Self-Reported by Selected New Horizons Band Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract New Horizons Band Members (N = 1,823) from 28 U.S. States and Canada rated the existence and importance of 42 potential benefits of the New Horizons experience. Benefits were organized into four categories: Healthy Personal, Skill, and Social/Cultural. Of these categories, Skill-related benefits were most frequently identified by band members as components of their experiences, followed by Social/Cultural, Personal, and Health benefits, respectively. On ratings of importance, these categories were ranked in the same order. The individual benefits found to have the highest percentages of existence were Accomplishment, Play/Fun, New Friends, Skill Refinement, and Challenge. The individual benefits with the highest ratings of importance were Play/Fun, Accomplishment, Technique, and Challenge. Social/Cultural benefits were rated much higher than a similar study of adult piano students. Findings suggest that while participants are interested in musical improvement, they also place a high value on Personal and Social benefits provided by the experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".