On the Structure and Proportions of Vaughan Williams's <i>Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large-scale structure of Vaughan Williams's Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis is defined by three major articulations: at E.5, I.1 and T.5. The proportions these define are remarkably constant across 12 recordings and Vaughan Williams's own metronome indications. Those at E.5 and T.5 help create a state of structural stability defined by quarter–half–quarter symmetry, while the articulation at I.1 coincides almost precisely with the ‘short’ Golden Section. These proportions find fascinating analogues in the structure of Gloucester Cathedral, for which venue the piece was composed, although this connection (especially with regard to the Golden Section) was probably not conscious. The proportions defined by E.5 and T.5 in the original version (1910) differed from those in the version we hear today (second revision, 1919), and Vaughan Williams's motive in making two waves of cuts (1913 and 1919) may have arisen from an instinctual desire to establish the sense of quarter–half–quarter symmetry.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".