Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although created more than 1000 years ago, medieval Christian chant and polyphony is still used in concert halls and churches. Questions remain, however, about whether 21st century performances should attempt to replicate earlier practices or reflect the creativity of the present day. This project focuses on the tension between evolutionist and preservationist mindsets that pervade Early Music, exploring the contrasting views that chant is an evolving and living tradition or that chant should be learned and performed as close to its original use as possible. Through a combination of bibliographic and ethnographic research I studied the views of Early Music scholars and conductors/directors on the current use of chant in and outside of the context of worship. From this research, I uncovered a fascinating paradox regarding authenticity in performance practice. It appears that scholars are overwhelmingly motivated by a desire for authenticity in their arguments for preservation or evolution, whereas the two church pastors and four contemporary directors and performers of chant in Eastern Ontario that were interviewed in this project expressed far more varied opinions. These were rarely attached to a desire for authenticity, despite being among few who use chant in its most “authentic” context of worship. This project draws attention to the absence of scholarship on chant performers and their motivations, giving a voice to the singers of chant in the contemporary world.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".