Book Review: Timothy J. McGee (ed). <em>Improvisation in the Arts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance</em>. Early Drama, Art and Music Monograph series, 30. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications (Western Michigan University), 2003.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Especially in the humanities, where genuinely collaborative research is still evolving sophisticated strategies and supportive infrastructures comparable to those of the sciences, academic specialization and the increasingly rigid classification of disciplines insulate numerous cross-disciplinary fields of enquiry only too effectively from serious interdisciplinary investigation.Many avenues of enquiry continue to be pursued in virtual isolation by different disciplines, without the benefits of shared data, insights or methodologies.This volume earns musicologist Timothy McGee the gratitude of theatre historians, by focusing the talents of a team of specialists on a cross-disciplinary area of central significance to drama: the role of improvisation in the arts.The increasing multi-disciplinary academic attention being attracted by improvisation is documented by publications such as Paul Berliner's groundbreaking Thinking in Jazz:
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".