A Qualitative Study Comparing the Teaching Philosophies and Practices of Children's Choir Artistic Directors in South-Central Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the number of studies related to community music in North America, very little research is available regarding children's choir artistic directors, specifically those in Ontario. This research project examined the philosophical and pedagogical teaching practices of children's choir artistic directors of south-central Ontario for a comparative study through a phenomenological qualitative approach. Guided by the research of notable conductors such as Doreen Rao, Helen Kemp, and Jean Ashworth Bartle, this study identified perspectives not yet explored and documented concerning teaching philosophies and practices of children's choir artistic directors in south-central Ontario. Emerging themes from the literature review included building community, healthy vocal tone production, and appropriate repertoire selection. To illustrate the various teaching philosophies and practices, rehearsal observations and interviews of participating children's choir artistic directors were documented from the following children's choirs: Toronto Children's Chorus, Young Voices Toronto, Bach Children's Chorus, Oakville Choir for Children and Youth, Hamilton Children's Choir, and Chorus Niagara Children's Choir. Additionally, a comparison was created depicting emerging themes in their stories. This work is essential because it provides a philosophical and pedagogical framework for the choirs of the south-central Ontario children's choir network serving as an example of various teaching practices for innovative research. Furthermore, this study could encourage continued research in developing a comprehensive and cohesive curriculum for the south-central Ontario children's choir network.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".