Cracking the code: recordings, transmission, players, and smiths in the Norwegian<i>munnharpe</i>revival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though it operates on the margins of the Norwegian folk music scene, the munnharpe (jew’s harp) revival has been active since the 1960s and today boasts an active network of festivals, musicians, and blacksmiths. After contextualising the instrument’s position within Norwegian folk music and outlining the history of the munnharpe community, I explore the transmission and revitalisation of the munnharpe tradition, suggesting that a large part of the revival’s success lies in the availability and accessibility of archival recordings. I examine the transmission of playing technique and repertoire amongst musicians, then compare it with instrument building transmission amongst blacksmiths, analysing how the dynamic between munnharpe players and makers has shaped the instrument’s musical and material spheres. Tracing the symbiotic relationship between archives, recordings, players, and makers, I argue that this interplay has been central to the revival in both its past and present iterations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".