Civil wind bands beyond music education: a scoping review (2010-2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive scoping review focused on the educational effects of active music-making participation in wind bands. This review combines mapping studies to identify the primary sources, authors, institutions, and types of evidence available in wind band research and a literature review to identify the key concepts underpinning this research domain. Based on peer-review journal literature published between 2010 and 2021, a total of 712 records were examined, resulting in 459 papers screened and 84 studies included in the analysis. Findings indicate that, in the past decade, the essential contribution to research about active music-making participation in wind bands came from Western English-speaking academic institutions based in the United States of America, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. The research’s relevant focus was on the purposes of music education and the psychosocial and health effects of participation. Furthermore, the psychosocial effects encompassed a comprehensive set of themes, such as social bonding, community music participation, emotional well-being, and individual quality of life. Nevertheless, all these topics are closely linked to the single overarching expression of the quality of life. Other than music education, educational effects were not at the heart of the last decade of wind band research. A few gaps in the literature exist, including a lack of research concerning the educational benefits of informal and intergenerational environments of wind band practices. Equally important is the lack of research on the impacts of wind band activities on social cohesion or the inclusive intercultural development of their local communities. Lastly, there is a significant opportunity to provide up-to-date insights into the educational potential of non-school contexts and the impacts of wind band activities on supporting their places’ cultural ecology.
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 | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".