MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330440347 · doi:10.1515/jbr-2015-0004

Stravinsky and U2 Fix Psalm 40

2015· article· en· W2330440347 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Zack Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Bible and its Reception · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Musicological Studies
Canadian institutionsRegent College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamentPraiseLiteratureLyricsArtAppropriationPoetryPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines the reception of Psalm 40 by Igor Stravinsky in the second movement of his “Symphony of Psalms” and by U2 in their song “40,” the final track on their 1983 album War. Though both limit their reception to only the first three verses of the psalm, their appropriation of the text indicates two different interpretations of the psalm within the Canon. Stravinsky places the verses between the concluding verses of Psalm 39 and the entirety of Psalm 150, the result of which is a typical personal lament psalm made up of lament, petition, assurance, and praise—a very different structure than the canonical Psalm 40's assurance followed by lament. U2's appropriation, on the other hand, is arguably more faithful to the text of the canonical Psalm 40 in that its concluding lyrics hearken back to the harrowing opening track of their album, the “lament” “Sunday Bloody Sunday.” The paper concludes by arguing that both Stravinsky and U2 remain faithful to the spirit of the psalter as a whole by re-appropriating the words of the psalmist for each musician's own Sitz I’m Leben.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.058 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Bible and its ReceptionSame topicDiverse Musicological StudiesFrench-language works237,207