Theorie et analyse musicales 1450-1650, Actes du colloque international, Louvain-la-Neuve, 23-25 septembre 1999 (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although early music theory and analysis is alive and well, relatively few collections of essays devoted to the disciplines have appeared in the last dozen years. Recently joining an essential volume of wide-ranging analytical articles, Models of Musical Analysis: Music Before 1600, edited by Mark Everist (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), are the more pitch-focused essays found in Modality in the Music of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,edited by Ursula Gunther, Ludwig Finscher, and Jeffrey Dean (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: American Institute of Musicology; Hänssler Verlag, 1996) and those in Tonal Structures in Early Music, edited by Cristle Collins Judd (New York: Garland Publishing, 1998), the latter marking the auspicious inauguration of the Garland/ Routledge series Criticism and Analysis of Early Music. A welcome addition to these publications, Music Theory and Analysis 1450-1650 differs from previous collections in offering articles less topically focused, addressing instead selected critical issues that nonetheless reflect how the major scholarly concerns of the last quarter of a century continue to captivate the field.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".