MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Topics and Formal Functions

2014· book· en· W2463889072 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

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamentSchema (genetic algorithms)PerceptionPsychologyLinguisticsEpistemologySocial psychologyComputer scienceLiteratureArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter examines the relationship of the lament topic to various form-functional contexts. After explaining that this topic is inextricably linked with a schema defined essentially by its bass voice, the study considers how the intrinsically sequential harmonic content of the schema lends itself well to expressing the formal sense of “being in the middle.” It further demonstrates that the schema can also participate in creating a formal ending, a cadence, and can even be used in an initiating formal context, which may engender the perception of a “formal dissonance,” a conflict between intrinsic and contextual functionality. The pervasive descending bass line of the lament schema, while appropriate for baroque compositional practice, jars somewhat with classical practice, such that the lament topic becomes a touchstone for highlighting stylistic differences among earlier and later works within the eighteenth century.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · 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