MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Thematic Representation of Female Composers in Classical Music on Streaming Platforms

2024· article· en· W4403063209 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jéssica Beatriz Tolare, Fernanda Carolina Pegoraro Novaes, Amanda Mendes Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Information and Library Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Thematic mapClassical musicComputer scienceArtVisual artsMusicalGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women have been increasingly fighting for their rights and equality in Society. Historically, in the 18th century, women’s musical education was considered a distraction and participation in family events, but professional engagement was not deemed acceptable. Given this context, questions arose about the existence of female classical music composers and whether their works are present on current music streaming platforms. Based on this, the study aimed to investigate how these composers are thematically represented on these platforms. Methodologically, the study is qualitative and exploratory, employing case study methods. The search terms used were “woman” and “classical music” along with the composers' names. The criterion for selecting composers was that they belonged to the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, as many male composers achieved enduring success during this period. The selected composers were Maria Anna Mozart, Fanny Mendelssohn, Clara Schumann, Chiquinha Gonzaga, and Alma Mahler-Werfel. The chosen platforms were Spotify, Amazon Music, Deezer, and Apple Music. The research demonstrated a scarcity of historical records about the analyzed composers’ lives. They were often compelled to abandon music due to family obligations, which contributed to the limited availability of their music on the platform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueCanadian Journal of Information and Library ScienceSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207