Canadian music therapists’ perspectives on the current state of music therapy as a profession in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the profession of music therapy has made many advances since the Canadian Association for Music Therapy (CAMT) was established in 1974, it is still a relatively new profession and as such, faces a variety of challenges. However, it is not known how these challenges are perceived by Canadian music therapists––all of whom live in diverse urban and rural regions of a geographically large country and work within different provincial/territorial healthcare and education systems. Furthermore, it is not known how these diverse experiences impact upon Canadian music therapists’ current views of the profession. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine Canadian music therapists’ perspectives on the current state of music therapy as a profession in Canada. Participants (N = 87) completed an online survey that examined their perceptions of the definition of music therapy, scope of practice, professional certification, government regulation, and professional advocacy––all in relation to the profession of music therapy in Canada. Results indicated that a majority of respondents believed that both the CAMT’s definition of music therapy and the Music Therapy Association of Ontario’s (MTAO) scope of practice statement are representative of the current profession and practice of music therapy in Canada. However, respondents’ perceptions were more varied in the other areas of the survey. Potential implications for the profession as well as areas for further research are discussed. \n\tKeywords: music therapy, Canada, profession, professionalization, survey
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".