MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795720222 · doi:10.30535/mto.24.1.4

Thomas Campion’s “Chordal Counterpoint” and Tallis’s Famous Forty-Part Motet

2018· article· en· W2795720222 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

VenueMusic Theory Online · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBass (fish)CounterpointParallelsMelodyArtArt historyLiteratureMusicalPhysicsEngineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The compositional process behind the iconic Tallis forty-part motet, Spem in alium (ca. 1570) remains an enigma. Did he really check every pair of voices for illegal parallels? The author proposes a scenario based on Thomas Campion’s “Rule” for connecting notes in three voices above a bass. This very clever system ensures the presence of all three interval-classes above the bass (third, fifth, and root), and makes parallels impossible. The treatise was widely reprinted, and it is likely that the system was known well before its appearance around 1614. Any composer who knew this system could have grouped the melodic motions above the bass in such a way as to make the task of writing in so many parts more manageable. Campion believed that the bass was the principal melodic voice, and glimpses into the disposition of the soggetti in Tallis’s motet reveal that the bass is indeed the soggetto in the thick-textured sections.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

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)0.0190.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.204 · 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