MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987336783 · doi:10.1525/jm.2011.28.3.231

Composing Imitative Counterpoint around a Cantus Firmus: Two Motets by Heinrich Isaac

2011· article· en· W1987336783 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Musicology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterpointPolyphonyPresentation (obstetrics)ArtStyle (visual arts)ParaphraseMusicalComposition (language)LiteratureArt historyLinguisticsPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the decades around 1500 composers learned to combine the new style of imitative polyphony with the older practice of basing a work on a cantus firmus. By applying Peter Schubert’s technique of modular analysis and his descriptions of common contrapuntal techniques to Heinrich Isaac's Inviolata integra et casta es Maria and Alma redemptoris mater, we can learn a great deal about compositional process in the period. Inviolata, which features a cantus firmus in strict canon after two measures, consists of two-, three-, and four-voice modules. Moreover, understanding the modular construction of the piece makes it possible to reconstruct the missing contratenor 2 part. In Alma redemptoris mater, which features a tenor cantus firmus that uses both long-note presentation and free paraphrase, Isaac uses four-voice modules, imitative presentation types involving modules, and nonmodular contrapuntal techniques probably derived from improvisatory practices. Understanding and labeling the contrapuntal techniques used in composition of this period allow us to analyze the music with a new precision, and to describe the differences between composers and genres.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.189 · 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