MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400289067 · doi:10.1121/10.0026979

Power and good music: The Indigenous southern plains flute tradition

2024· article· en· W4400289067 on OpenAlexaff
Paula Conlon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Musicological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluteIndigenousPower (physics)ArtGeographyArt historyEcologyPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In traditional Indigenous southern plains culture, a young man could not talk to a young woman alone when they were not yet married. Instead, he would play his flute at the edge of the encampment in the evenings, and each young man had his own love song. In southern plains flute origin stories, power is attributed to good music. If a flute song achieves its intended goal of convincing the young woman to marry the flute player, one can assume the song would be considered “good.” But what criteria distinguish good from bad? Which elements typify a “good” flute song? What about the flute itself? Which features epitomize the quintessential flute? Another set of possible criteria in determining that quality is information about the flute player. In her chapter, “Culture and Aesthetics,” ethnomusicologist Marica Herndon (1980) observes the community-centered perspective of Indigenous North America. Our last set of criteria involves an assessment of the moral character of the flute player regarding service to their tribal community. This talk discusses the “good music” of two master Indigenous southern plains flute players—Belo Cozad (1864-1950) (Kiowa) and Doc Tate Nevaquaya (1932-1996) (Comanche).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicDiverse Musicological StudiesFrench-language works237,207