Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Folk Song: Tradition, Revival, and Re-Creation. Edited by Ian Russell and David Atkinson. (Aberdeen: Elphinstone Institute, University of Aberdeen, 2004. Pp. 550, introductions, photographs, illustrations, maps, tables, musical notation, bibliography, indices. £20.00 paper) This volume contains the proceedings of the 1998 Sheffield Conference that celebrated the centenary of the (English) Folk Song Society. Since it was the first such conference for many years, the book is of interest and importance for that reason alone; but there are few academic jobs in English folk music scholarship, and still less money, so most of its practitioners are amateur in the sense that they do their work for love, and that factor brings to the volume a quality and sense of engagement lacking in other proceedings. More than fifty papers were given at the conference: the book contains two introductory essays, followed by thirty-six essays evenly divided into three sections-Reviving and re-creating folk traditions; Those who made it happen; and Singers and Songs. In a short review it is not possible to do more than notice the best and examine some general trends. star essay of the first section is David Atkinson's Revival: Genuine or Spurious (no. 12), a nod to the Handler and Linnekin article of 1984. Most of us think we understand what we mean by tradition, but this understanding is at best very hazy: empiricists (like your reviewer) tend to shy away from the topic altogether. Atkinson manfully and successfully grapples with his subject, though his essay would be better had he written in English rather than Academese: Thus while tradition depends essentially upon a personal, volitional, affective engagement across time, and/or space, and does not inhere specifically in cultural products, these are nonetheless necessary for the instantiation of tradition. Is it really necessary to make readers tease out the meaning behind passages like these? section Those who made it happen is divided equally into The Men and The Women. In the male section, the most interesting essays address the Telfer manuscript (by John Wesley Barker, no.13) and Peter Kennedy and the BBC folk music recording scheme (E. David Gregory, no. 18), with strong contributions by Martin Graebe (on Sabine Baring-Gould, no. 14) and John Francmanis (on Frank Kidson5), though Francmanis should beware of drawing wide-ranging conclusions from a tiny evidence base. Amongst the women, by far the most enjoyable essay is by Martin Lovelace, on Maud Karpeles' collecting trips to Newfoundland in 1929-1930 (no. 22), though it is marred by a carping attitude which chides Karpeles for failing to meet the standards of a later generation of collectors, and compares her work unfavorably with that of an American collector (Elisabeth Greenleaf, in Newfoundland at the same time) without telling us how well Greenleaf met these more exacting standards. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».