Voicing for Life: A Study to Explore the Benefits of Linklater Voice in a Community Music Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study had two objectives. Within the training programs of community musicians, we sought to investigate the relationship between community music-makers and voice habilitation practices. We also sought to understand how community music-makers learn to adapt their personal vocal practices to an undergraduate curriculum. Ten community musicians participated in this study. They were drawn from a class that was following aspects of Kristin Linklater’s voice progression framework as laid out in her book Freeing the Natural Voice. Linklater’s material was supplemented with other interventions thought to promote voice habilitation, such as laryngeal massage (Mathieson 2011) and semi-occluded vocal tract exercises. Data was collected through class observations, interviews and surveys. While the body of participants was admittedly small, we did see evidence that the vocal habilitation practices advocated by the Linklater voice progression framework seemed to support the efforts of these community musicians to express themselves more effectively. A greater sample may add dimension to these preliminary findings. More study is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".