Identification and Illustration of Means to a Critical Assessment of Music and Health Research Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2019, the WHO released a scoping review investigating art therapies in evidence-based healthcare practices to identify and understand the gaps in the literature. However, the studies curated were not evaluated for their quality. To address this limitation, several assessment tools to critically appraise music-based research studies that investigate therapies pertaining to preventative healthcare were investigated. Two critical appraisal tools were selected for their robustness and appropriateness for the studies in question: the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists and the Music-Based Intervention Guidelines. These tools were tested by two assessors on a total of 23 music studies from the Preventative and Prevention Health section of the WHO report. Based on the requirements for each critical appraisal tool, seven studies received a full assessment utilizing both checklists. Of these seven, two studies scored on the higher index, indicating that the studies followed a detailed methodology to provide concrete and accurate results. The findings of the study highlighted the limitations of study designs and music-based interventions. With this information, beneficial recommendations for future research in this domain are provided to improve the quality of research, ensuring its place in evidence-based healthcare practices.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".