MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025893215 · doi:10.1017/s0261127908000284

JOHANNES DE GROCHEIO AND ARISTOTELIAN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

2008· article· en· W2025893215 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

VenueEarly Music History · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipMusicalNatural (archaeology)WitnessArtSubject (documents)PostmodernismLiteraturePolyphonyArt historyPhilosophyAestheticsHistoryLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Johannes de Grocheio is best known today primarily for the fact that he wrote about secular monophony, a subject practically ignored by previous music writers. In Grocheio’s only surviving treatise, which modern scholarship has christened De musica (it is actually untitled in the manuscripts), he provides an unparalleled witness to Parisian musical life around 1300 through a wide-ranging classification of musical performances. The treatise’s tantalisingly realistic observations have been by far the most discussed aspect of De musica in over a century of modern scholarship ranging from an early landmark critical edition to recent postmodern readings. However, for those intent on discovering thirteenth-century performance practice, Grocheio has been as much a musicological frustration as a delight. The most egregious problem is that he appears not to describe some of his musical examples accurately. What has been lost in a great deal of this discussion is the extent to which Grocheio’s unique perspective shapes his discussion of music.

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 score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.129 · 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