Mieux comprendre le processus de co-création d’une chanson : la réflexivité au service d’un projet de recherche-création
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How are ideas intertwined during a co-creation process? What kind of relationship develops between the co-creators and their work? Why is co-creation sometimes so difficult, even in an atmosphere of trust and respect? While collaborative creation has been the subject of much research in education and psychology, it remains relatively unstudied in its own right, as a specific mode of creation. This article reports on a musicology project adopting a research-creation approach. The research component aims to better understand the co-creation process of a song through active participant observation (APO), while the creation component aims to produce a song that is meaningful to its co-creators. Through a hermeneutic and reflective approach, I demonstrate that considering my own journey within this project allowed me to better understand the complexity of the creative, collaborative, and interactional components of the co-creation process. My analyses, based on transcripts, a logbook, individual interviews, and cross-self-confrontation, also enabled me to reflect on the role of a person in a position of authority within a co-creation group: how can they intervene to "facilitate" the creative process while minimizing their influence on it? Indeed, I chose to collaborate with young people aged 15 to 17 with no prior songwriting experience, thus testing Vygotsky's (1981) concept of the zone of proximal development. In summary, my results show that resorting to a more traditional epistemological stance would not have allowed us to reveal certain intersubjective subtleties of the co-creation process, such as the surprising ambiguity of the link that unites the co-creators to their song.
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 | 0.054 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".