Music and young people with intellectual disability: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recent reviews of the effects of arts therapies and music therapy on people with intellectual disabilities (IDs), significant knowledge gaps remain in this field, notably concerning informal music activities and the role that young participants play in music interventions. A scoping review was conducted in January 2021 to explore music interventions implemented in youth with ID and their effects. In total, 74 studies were retained, including 12 reviews and 62 empirical studies. We apply a bibliometric analysis to identify the evolution of publications and research trends in the field. We then attempt to answer the question: “What is the state of knowledge on music education for youth with ID?”. To do so, we describe the music interventions examined in the research to date and the main measured effects. Overall, the findings show that music interventions in youth with ID facilitate overall development in terms of a range of functional skills, that technology-assisted music training has excellent educational promise, and that learner voice merits greater attention in the music research. Nevertheless, studies have largely neglected to consider self-determination and creativity, qualities that are likely to foster youth engagement, and in the longer term, promote social participation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".