The Evolution of Fandom for Live Music Festival Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This inquiry was positioned as an opportunity to explore the future of the fandom experience of live music festivals. It is grounded in utilizing the framework of Ken Wilber’s integral theory to classify insights as validity claims that are subjective, inter-subjective, objective, and inter-subjective (Wilber, 1997). These quadrants were used to analyze data into personal, group-oriented, transactional, and transformational respectively. Firstly, I conducted a thorough literature review of the nature of fandom, the ecosystems of concerts and live performances, the impacts of live music performances, music psychology and human physiological responses, and the benefits of music education. Secondly, subject matter expert interviews were conducted of Canadian live music festival artistic and executive directors to explore how the organizational and production side of live music festivals impacted fans. Thirdly, design workshops were conducted to explore possible futures of live music festivals through the generation of creative ideations that represent how new objective constructs and inter-objective systems applied to live music festivals can influence future subjective and inter-subjective fandom experiences. Fourthly, I utilized the STEEP-V framework to organize all data according to social, technological, environmental, economic, political, and values-based insights and then organized. Finally, through the analysis and synthesis of the collective insights under the validity claims framework (Wilber, 1997), this inquiry pointed towards both the robustness of the viability and sustainability of the organization of live music festivals and the ongoing desire of the live music fandom to continue to broaden the scope and reach of the modern live music festival in a world that is full of panic and possibility.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".