Oboe educators’ perspectives on playing-related injury, Part I: Lived experience and perceptions surrounding injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music students experiencing the potentially debilitating effects of playing-related injury (PRI) often first turn to their music teachers for help. This paper aims to document music instructors’ lived experience and perceptions surrounding PRI and better understand how teachers currently support students’ musculoskeletal health. Using a qualitative description approach, in-depth interviews with 10 oboe teachers (7 male, 3 female) documented their lived experience with or without injury and perceptions of PRI. Self-identified uninjured participants ( n = 5) described PRI-adjacent and non-PRI problems which elicited empathy for injured musicians, and self-reflective practices that contributed to better health. Injured participants described varied relationships to their pain, including pain as a source of guilt, distress, learning, and growth, and described diverse coping mechanisms including physical therapy, medication, mindfulness, and self-experimentation. Participants’ observations and experiences of PRI influenced their teaching, and several described seeking greater efficiency in students’ instrument set-up and body use. Resources for injured musicians were perceived to be difficult to access due to financial constraints, unawareness, jargon-filled language, and misinformation. These results suggest a need for more outreach from performing arts health professionals connecting music teachers, often the first point of contact for injured students, with high-quality resources which support student wellbeing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".