MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W37789560 · doi:10.1111/1749-4877.12763

Musicam sacram Revisted: Anchor to the Past or Path to the Future?

2008· article· en· W37789560 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edward Foley

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesEthnologyArtRitePhilosophyHistoryTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'instruction Musicam sacram fut promulguee par la Sacree Congregation des Rites en 1967. Quarante ans plus tard, l'auteur suggere qu'il est utile de revoir cette instruction, seul document portant sur la musique emis par le Saint Siege apres le Deuxieme Concile du Vatican et encore considere par certains comme le seul guide officiel sur la musique du Novus ordo de PaulVI. L'auteur souligne certaines difficultes avec cette opinion puisque le Novus ordo n'existait pas dans son entier lorsque l'instruction fut promulguee et est donc plus adequatement compris comme etant un commentaire de l'Ordo Missae (une forme modifiee du Rite tridentin) en vigueur a ce temps-la. L'auteur examine le contexte historique du document, suggere une interpretation correcte et explore les differentes formes litteraires du texte. Il est d'avis que les declarations et les principes theologiques de la Constitution sur la Sainte Liturgie valent encore alors que de nouvelles lois ont abroge ou deroge en grande partie des normes juridiques. Il conclut que ce document devrait encore servir pour definir le role de la musique dans le culte.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.011

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia canonicaSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207