Repulsion to Ritual: Interpreting Folk Festivals in the Polish Tatras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Folklore festivals and other presentations of folk music for tourists are frequently interpreted as pale representations of “real” folk music at best, and commercial corruptions at worst. The author at least has been guilty of such interpretations. In this article, he interprets folklore festivals in southern Poland as highly meaningful calendric rituals necessary for the survival of certain ways of life. Folklore festivals replace, sometimes quite deliberately, more commonly recognised calendric rituals formerly enacted to preserve agricultural livelihood. One thing preserved and protected by the folklore festival ritual is the concept of “authentic folk music.” Once the protective ritual is performed, the participants are free to go and engage in other “non-authentic” music activities. The author shows how these notions of authenticity and preservation are negotiated by performers, festival promoters, local musical folklorists, and tourists. Rather than being repulsed by the inevitable changes in “back-region” performance practices for stylised “front-region” staged performances, he views them as meaningful responses to changing social, economic and cultural conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".