MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785664222

Becoming Byzantine: Modernization and Tradition in the Liturgical Music of the Greek Orthodox Church

2018· article· en· W2785664222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily Laliotis

Bibliographic record

VenueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Musicological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsByzantine architectureModernization theoryLiturgyArtChristianityClassicsAncient historyHistoryPolitical scienceLawArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When I walk into my Greek Orthodox Church on any given Sunday service, I am greeted by the sound of the past—florid melodies backed only by the single-note drone of another chanter. The exotic sounding notes echo in the cavernous cathedral as incense lightly stings my nose. Suddenly, from out of nowhere booms an organ, plunking out a major chord for the slightly out of tune choir that begins to sing in harmony. These two types of liturgical music seem to be at complete odds with one another, and yet, each holds a significant place in the Greek Orthodox tradition. However, their relationship is not always easy—the rapport between choirs and chanters is often tense, stemming from a conflict over orthopraxy. Church musicians are separated by what they believe to be the ‘correct’ music of the Church, pitting the Byzantine purists against choral enthusiasts. The Byzantine purists believe that as the original music of worship in the Greek Orthodox Church, Byzantine music is obviously more authentic to the experience of the Orthodox Christian. Choral enthusiasts, on the other hand, grew up hearing harmonized music in Greek Orthodox parishes of the United States, and thus reject the notion that Byzantine chant should have dominance.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.111 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound)Same topicDiverse Musicological StudiesFrench-language works237,207