Music, health and well-being in IJCM articles: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the ways health and well-being-related terms and concepts (health, well-being, quality of life, wellness) appear in International Journal of Community Music (IJCM) articles. The research questions were: (1) how are health and well-being concepts defined or expressed in IJCM articles? (2) What are the central themes or trends in the use of health and well-being terms in IJCM articles? And (3) what are the implications of the use of health and well-being terms for the practice and research of community music? Utilizing an integrative review methodology and supported by database software Airtable, this study examined the application, discussion, operationalization, and contextualization of music, health and wellness terms and concepts as they appear in IJCM to determine the degree of conceptual coherence on health and well-being related terms. Despite the historical and growing interest in connections between music, health and wellness among community music researchers, analysis revealed a lack of coherence in the use of health-related terms and concepts. Further, health and well-being are rarely operationalized in IJCM articles. As a result, findings from studies are not comparable and it is difficult for the knowledge base to advance.
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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".