MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982797431 · doi:10.1093/em/can144

Still newer light on the old bow

2009· article· en· W1982797431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. E. Seletsky

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Music · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourtesyArtNothingArt historyBow tieHistoryPhilosophyEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apologies to Robert Seletsky for the long delay in publication of this letter. Ed. In my article ‘New light on the old bow’ (Early Music, xxxii/2 (2004) (Part 1), pp.286–301; Early Music, xxxii/3 (2004) (Part 2), pp.415–26), I made a few statements which I would like to emend. In Part 1, on p.294, in my zeal to defend the short bow, I presumed that archets communs, appearing in the catalogues of mid-18th-century French luthiers, meant ‘short bows’. In fact, these are contrasted with archets à vis or ‘screw bows’; thus, communs is intended to indicate clip-in frogs without reference to bow length. While it does not negate the fact that short bows were still popular at the time, it is not a direct reference to them. In Part 2, on p.417, I noted that the two bows thought to be owned by Giuseppe Tartini and housed in the Conservatorio di Musica ‘G. Tartini’ at Trieste were constructed of legno santo (‘holy wood’), as described by the curator of the collection in 1969. Italian bow-maker Antonino Airenti has kindly provided me with some brilliant recent photographs proving that the woods are nothing so exotic. The long bow is simple snakewood—overly thinned, octagonal and too light, as I wrote—while the later bow—also too light—is apparently made of satiné, cacique or some other wood in the brosimum family of woods. Information about the material of the later bow is courtesy of Toronto bow-maker Stephen A. Marvin; we both dissent from Mr Airenti's description of the wood as ‘pernambuco’. The single extant clip-in frog, which evidently fits the long bow very poorly and the later bow not at all, is not boxwood as I had been informed earlier, but is probably pernambuco (again, I disagree with Mr Airenti's designation of ‘palm wood’). I should also note that the later bow is of very rough, almost folk-bow, quality; it is currently badly broken as well. It seems unlikely that a noted master like Tartini would have used a bow of this grade professionally. One may muse that musicians typically accumulate all sorts of instruments throughout their lives, and at their deaths, the precise origins or purposes of such objects are often unclear and misconstrued. At all events, the new information makes note 6 in Part 2 of ‘New light on the old bow’ unnecessary, however intriguing I found some of the information contained therein.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.045

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly MusicSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207