Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Philippines has faced marginalization due to its colonial history, hindering the development of a cohesive national identity and a representation in musicological discourse. Among the country’s many Indigenous groups, the Kalinga people of the Cordilleras region remain unheard even within their own country. Focusing on the Kalinga song “Wiyawi,” this study examines the lullaby’s cultural significance, musical structure, and tuning systems through an analysis of field recordings and transcriptions by Felicidad A. Prudente. Drawing on the ethnomusicological frameworks of Prudente, José Maceda, and Aaron Prior, this research produces a new transcription of the song, which further reveals the lullaby’s role in the context of Kalinga traditions. Collaboration with members of the Kalinga culture enriched this work, yielding a newly expanded set of lyrics to “Wiyawi.” Additionally, the new transcription provides insight into the Kalinga tuning system in vocal music by investigating scholarship on anhemitonic scales in instrumental music. This paper calls for further ethnomusicological research and fieldwork to emphasize the importance of preserving Indigenous music in global musicological discourse and ensure that the voices of the Kalinga people are heard and valued.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".