Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book offers a systematic survey of ethos theory: the theory according to which the right sort of music can have a positive or negative effect on moral development. It also evaluates the extant empirical literature on music and moral development. The belief that the right sort of music promotes moral development is almost ubiquitous. At every stage in the history of philosophical thinking, many philosophers have believed that the right sort of music is conducive to moral improvement and the wrong kind of music can produce moral decay. This book has three main goals. The first is to inform readers about the range of thinkers and cultures (Asian, African and European) which have adopted some version of the ethos theory. The book surveys the history of ethos theory starting with its origins in ancient Greece and ancient China, proceeding to trace its development through the Middle Ages and into the early modern period. Next, the development of ethos theory is traced from the middle of the nineteenth century to the present. The second goal is to investigate what would count as evidence that ethos theory is correct, paying specific attention to the complex ways that people experience music. Finally, the author evaluates the currently available empirical evidence for ethos theory. Critique of Practical Music will appeal to philosophers, psychologists, musicologists and music educators who are interested in music and moral development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".