MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975586015 · doi:10.1558/rrr.v8i3.277

Erasmus on Sacred Music

2006· article· en· W1975586015 on OpenAlex
Hyun-Ah Kim

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReformation and Renaissance Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErasmus+WorshipMusicalDecorumContext (archaeology)CriticismSingingLiturgyLiteratureArtSacrificeAestheticsMusic historyPhilosophyTheologyHistoryArt historyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Erasmus censures the musical practice of the medieval Church from ethical and rhetorical perspectives on music, and highlights decorum in delivery at the liturgical performance. His criticism of instrumental music echoes the patristic views of music, which are essentially logocentric and opposed to the use of musical instruments within the Church. The Erasmian ideal of church musicians lies in the classical model of the sacred-musical orator, with great emphasis on musicians’ moral status and intellectual ability. In relation to music (especially the Psalms) in the context of Christian worship, Erasmus regards music as a ‘spiritual sacrifice’ in which leading godly lives is combined with singing hymns and praises.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.200 · 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