Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on the research of Octobre and Patureau (2018), this article invites reflection on the treatment of gender issues in digital mediation formats developed by music mediation organizations and concert promoters. Studies in the sociology of artistic work (Coulangeon and Ravet 2003; Buscatto 2007; Bousquet et al. 2018) consistently show that music fields – be it classical, jazz, or pop – are affected by a dual gender segregation: horizontal (gender distribution based on the type of employment) and vertical (lower access to leadership positions). One might assume that producers of digital mediation formats, who advocate for values such as coexistence, social inclusion, and agency (Perez-Roux and Montandon 2014; Carrel 2017), and who are aware of the normative and prescriptive effects of educational resources (Octobre 2014), would question these boundaries. The ‘counting’ and analysis of ‘cases’ derived from the systematic examination of approximately one hundred accessible online digital formats produced by music production and dissemination organizations will demonstrate that this is not the case.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".