Criteria for Curricular Literature Selection Among Florida Band Directors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to collect data concerning the criteria used by Florida secondary school band directors when selecting music for curricular inclusion in their wind band programs. Subjects (N=64) responded to a survey sent in the last quarter of the school year. The survey asked that the participant list four pieces selected for performance throughout the year, and to provide reasoning for their selection. A second portion asked the participant to rank the order of criteria that were identified in the research literature. Findings indicate that the top criterion ranked among the responding Florida band directors was aesthetic value. The free response portion indicated that educational elements were the primary criterion when selecting music for curricular inclusion. A disparity was found between high school directors (n=25) and middle school directors (n=39) in that 44.0 percent of high school directors ranked aesthetic value as their top criterion, and only 8.8 percent of middle school directors ranked the same criterion as their top criterion. The responses are in line with the data of past research and the ideas posited by authors in the professional literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".