MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1870533959 · doi:10.1353/not.2015.0104

Music Theory and Analysis (MTA) International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory ed. by Pieter Bergé, Steven Vande Moortele, and Nathan J. Martin (review)

2015· article· en· W1870533959 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlemishMusicologyMusic theorySuspectMusic historySociologyMedia studiesClassicsLiteratureHistoryMusic educationArtPolitical scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyMusicalLawPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Music Theory and Analysis (MTA) International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theoryed. by Pieter Bergé, Steven Vande Moortele, and Nathan J. Martin Matthew Bribitzer-Stull Music Theory and Analysis (MTA) International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory. Edited by Pieter Bergé, Steven Vande Moortele, and Nathan J. Martin. Published bi-annually. Vol 1, Issue 1(September 2014). ISSN: 2295-5917 (print) / ISSN: 2295-5925 (online). Print-only subscriptions are not offered. Pricing varies based on institutional or individual subscriptions and discounts are available for members of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory and for literary agents. Inquiries or submissions: Music Theory & Analysis, Leuven University Press, Minderbroedersstraat 4, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email: mta@lup.be. As a music theorist writing a review for a journal read largely by music librarians, I fear abrogating the first dictum of all effective communication: know your audience. For that reason, I will strive to avoid analytic jargon and theoretic hypothesizing as much as possible, viciously redacting terms like Auskompenierung, “Klumpenhouwer Networks,” and “medial caesura,” wherever I might be tempted to use them, in favor of articulating how the first issue of the Music Theory and Analysis International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory(herein MTA) fits into the larger universe of English-language music-theory journals and—most importantly—whether or not it is the best interests of inquiring music librarians to scrape together the dregs of the acquisition budget to subscribe to yet another specialist publication. I suspect if you have made it this far into my review, then you might be wondering, “Is the successor to the Dutch Journal of Music Theory( Tijdschrift voor Muzietheorie) worth purchasing?” My answer, in a word, is “yes.” “Yes,” that is, if your library serves any population of faculty, students, musicians, or community members with an interest (professional or otherwise) in music theory and analysis. While any self-respecting music library will carry top-tier titles like Music Theory Spectrum, The Journal of Music Theory, and Music Theory Analysis, musicologists in general (and music theorists, specifically) publish analytic work in a wide variety of places. Those same populations often seek to read the work of their peers (and assign it to their students), so it’s important to know which journals will deliver the most bang for the buck. Simply put, I expect MTAto provide a good return on investment. First, the preliminaries. This is a peer-reviewed journal with an international editorship, advisory board, list of contributors, and intended audience. Its focus—music theory and analysis—is evident in the title. Unlike many other similar journals, however, MTAattempts something novel: fostering discussion and interaction between scholars and musicians working both in North America and in Europe. Said discussion and interaction is long overdue, for ever since the middle of the twentieth century North America and England (and, one might mention, Finland) adopted Viennese theorist Heinrich Schenker as the flag-bearer for tonal analysis, while Germany remained wedded to the writings of its native son, Hugo Riemann, and other countries like France and Italy reworked time-honored traditions based on practical methods like partimenti. In short, the present day bears witness to a Tower-of-Babel situation in the field, with scholars interested in the same body of musical works often unable or unwilling to understand and value what one another is doing when it comes to theory and analysis. Delving deeper, how does MTApropose to rectify the current state of affairs? Is simply juxtaposing work by scholars trained in different traditions enough to stimulate real dialogue and interaction? Juxtaposition is a starting point, and there have [End Page 196]been plenty of anthologies including works by a variety of scholars publishing on a topic of similar interest that do just that. It seems, however, that this has not been enough to stimulate lasting engagement between diverse approaches. Thus, it is heartening to see that MTA’s editorial board includes well-known scholars from the US, Canada, England, and mainland Europe, many of whom—like Alexander Rehding, John Koslovsky, and Christian Thorau—have established international reputations. More important, the editors of...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it