Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".