Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses de Clercq’s contribution to our understanding of the relationship between scale degree and cadence type within Bach chorales from the perspective of style and probability. De Clercq is applauded for the diligence of this research and for attempting to synthesize findings into a practical, working model of benefit to music-theory students and educators. A literal interpretation of a premise underpinning his model—that more common musical events are more indicative of a style—is, however, found to be inconsistent. A test is described in which university students enrolled in a second-level harmony class were presented with pairs of cadences. Cadences were manipulated in various ways, primarily to investigate whether the inclusion of certain figurations would result in a perfect-authentic cadence—the most ubiquitous cadence within Bach chorales—being considered less stylistic than a never-occurring cadence. This proved to be the case, demonstrating the importance of figuration over scale degree and cadence for the accomplishment of style. De Clercq’s model is further discussed with respect to probabilistic models of music and in relation to proscriptive approaches to teaching harmony.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".