Paucity of Female College Band Directors as Faculty and Conductors at National Conferences in the United States, 2017–2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: Research indicates that women hold far fewer positions as collegiate band directors than do their male counterparts; however, since the 1993–1994 academic year, there have been no updated statistics describing the sex ratio of women who are college band directors. As the wind band profession is putting more effort into diversity initiatives and women are becoming more accepted as conductors, an examination of current sex (female and male) representation of band directors seemed timely and necessary. The purpose of this study was to provide updated data. Using the College Music Society Directory of Music Faculties in Colleges and Universities, U.S. and Canada 2017–2018, the author of the present study looked at the sex of college band directors listed and discovered that only 11.3 percent of all college band director positions in the United States were held by women. Furthermore, only 13.4 percent of bands selected to perform at the Midwest Clinic were led by women in the ten occurrences of the conference between 2009 and 2018, and only 5.3 percent of bands selected to perform at the Collegiate Band Directors National Association at the fourteen national conferences held between 1993 and 2019 had women as their head conductors. Clearly, sex parity does not yet exist among university band directors. With the publication of more current percentages of the representation of women as band directors that this study provides, research investigating why this phenomenon continues and advocacy to change the status quo is highly recommended.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".