The Power of Pibroch: Emotion and the Classical Music of the Scottish Highland Bagpipes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Gaelic, the term piobaireachd (anglicised as pibroch) literally \nmeans piping, or what pipers do. However in recent \ntimes the term has come to represent the classical music \nof the Scottish Highland bagpipes, traditionally known \nas Ceòl Mór. Today pibroch still holds its literal meaning, \nbut is widely used in bagpipe culture to refer to Ceòl Mór. \nPibroch has a hazy history, but is thought to have been a \nmusical style for the Scottish Highland bagpipes for over \n500 years. Pibroch was a music historically written for and \nperformed within contexts of celebration, mourning, victory, \nor warfare (amongst others). As a result individual pieces \nhave associated stories that allow people to interpret emotion \nduring a performance, and some of these stories come \nto be seen by some as highly emotional and ‘moving’. Today, \nsignificant changes have affected pibroch: where the \nhighland clan system no longer exists; where there are now \ninternational enclaves of pibroch performance; and where \nromanticisation, editorialising and ‘empire’ have led to diverse \ninterpretations of bagpiping and pibroch. As a result, \nthe performance contexts of pibroch in contemporary society \nhave also changed. Today pibroch is a music mostly \nmaintained in competitive performance cultures, especially \nstrong in Scotland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and \nNorthern Ireland, Canada, the United States of America, \nAustralia, and New Zealand. This presentation will focus on \nthe interpretation of emotion in association with pibroch performance, \nand the role that this process plays in maintaining \npibroch cultures, particularly within Australia and New \nZealand.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".