Towards a Biography of Lucy Broadwood (1858-1929): Problems and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 41st World Congress of the International Council for Traditional Music was held at Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, from Wednesday July 13th to Thursday July 19th, 2011. Apart from attending many of the great variety of paper sessions, workshops and concerts, I participated actively in this conference in two main ways: \n \n1. On Sunday July 17th, at 1030am, I chaired a ninety-minute workshop titled “Singing the West: Traditional Songs and Songs in the Tradition from the Prairies and British Columbia.” This focused mainly, although not entirely, on the homesteading, logging, mining, and fishing songs in the Philip Thomas Collection. I introduced the Thomas Collection and the individual songs chosen from it, placing them in their historical and geographical contexts. The other participants in the workshop, as singers, were Rosaleen Gregory and Calgary musician John Leeder, the Honorary President of the Canadian Society for Tradiitonal Music. There was an audience of about one dozen, and there were lively discussions both during and after the song presentations. It appeared to be a very successful session. \n \n2. On Monday July 18th, at 3.30pm, I participated in a two-hour paper session titled “Pioneering Individuals and the Construction of Musical Narratives.” As part of this session I duly delivered my paper on “Towards a Biography of Lucy Broadwood (1858-1929): Problems and Perspectives.” I accompanied the paper with a power-point presentation designed to highlight the structure of the paper and to provide visual images of Broadwood and several of her composer, musician and intellectual friends, including Ralph Vaughan Williams, Percy Grainger, Fanny Davies and Jessie Weston. \nThe paper was well-received, but there was time for only about five minutes of discussion. This focused mainly on Broadwood’s complicated relationship to Cecil Sharp. I was asked why I called Sharp an acquaintance of Broadwood rather than a friend since they worked closely together on a few issues of the Journal of the Folksong Society. I tried to explain the class differences between the two collectors, and the somewhat exclusive nature of Broadwood’s social networks which included many people of whom Sharp had made enemies by criticizing them publicly. However, in retrospect I think that my explanation identified only part of the truth. Personality conflicts and ideological differences about the nature of English folksong also undoubtedly played a role in keeping their relationship rather distant. Given Sharp’s central role in the English Folksong Revival this is clearly an important issue that will require exploration in some depth in my anticipated book on Broadwood. It was useful to be alerted to it. More generally, the main purpose of my writing and delivering this paper was to help me clarify some of the principal themes and issues to be addressed in that book. I believe it served that purpose admirably and was therefore a valuable and worth-while experience. I was also glad to meet Elaine Keillor (a participant in the same session) and to learn about the Tom Kines archive of which she is curator.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".