Getting it together: relational learning in a jazz performance context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To inform my professional practice as a jazz educator and as a musician, I explore relational learning within a jazz performance context. Specifically, I document and reflect on my experiences of learning in a journal as I interact in performance activities within the Toronto jazz community over a six month time period. Themes that emerge in the reflexive journal writings are interpreted and represented through paintings, poetry, and jazz compositions, the latter of which are recorded on CD. The themes bring into question previously held beliefs and values about learning and music making—ideas which drew upon my understandings of constructivism as a philosophy for music education. The challenges that arise during collaborative music making experiences lead me to examine more closely the elements that optimally must be present for positive interaction. While frustrations I experienced during early collaborations could refute the value of learning within relational contexts, the writings of Kagan (1997) and Lambert (1995) alternatively suggest that individual accountability, positive interdependence, and reciprocity foster the potential for the co-creation of new understandings. In realizing that these elements are lacking in my own collaborative experiences, I pursue technical competence and creative confidence as fundamental to individual accountability. Chase (1988) and Werner (1996) demonstrate the mastery of these concepts within the context of music making—even in the practice room—supporting my earliest assumption of the value of learning in real life situations. In addition, I explore my role as a bandleader in creating music making contexts that foster the development of positive interdependence and reciprocity. The newfound understandings that have evolved through my exploration as a developing jazz musician provide insight about the subtleties of collaboration, enabling me to act more thoughtfully as a facilitator of such experiences both on the bandstand and in my classroom. My investigation has strengthened my belief in creating safe and trusting environments that emphasize mutuality and respect, provide positive feedback, and encourage creative problem solving.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".