Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facilitation is a key aspect of community music. While only two of the articles in International Journal of Community Music (IJCM) 17.2 have the word ‘facilitators’ explicitly in the title, all the articles in this issue speak, in their distinct ways, to facilitation/facilitators in community music. Most direct in this regard is the systematic review of research on group singing facilitators by J. Yoon Irons and associates. Other articles in this issue study the activities of the Ostend Street Orkestra in Belgium (Verneert et al.), the Pizzicato Effect in Hume, Australia (Smith et al.), Tàlaidhean Ùra – a Scottish implementation of The Lullaby Project (Tanner, Wilson and Wight), the theatre troupe Sex Worker’s Opera (Flower) and the DocSong method used at in an all-male minimum- and medium-security state prison in the United States (Kirchner). Taken together, the articles in issue 17.2 add to the growing research base on facilitation in community music settings.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
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".