The thirteen non-liturgical fugues à 4 in Le Livre d’orgue de Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprised of nearly 300 pieces, embracing virtually all the common genres of French organ repertoire, notated on 540 pre-ruled pages, with hitherto only sixteen pieces securely attributed to the esteemed organist of Louis XIV, Nicolas-Antoine Lebègue, Le livre d’orgue de Montréal is the principal manuscript of late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century French organ music. Some of the organ fugues interspersed throughout Le livre d’orgue de Montréal form part of larger polyphonic settings of Magnificats and organ masses. The manuscript also includes organ fugues specifically identified in the context of the liturgy and subsumed in alternatim practice, the alternation between organ versets and repeating psalm tones. This study focuses on yet another group of thirteen consecutive fugues, which, by the absence of a psalm tone, are treated either as a cantus firmus or as a paraphrase thereof, and on account of their peculiar placement outside an identifiable liturgical context, are suggestive of solo concert repertoire or pedagogical purposes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".