MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242781192 · doi:10.1017/ccol9780521833479.011

Sacred music

2005· book-chapter· en· W4242781192 on OpenAlexaff
James Dack

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiturgyRiteContext (archaeology)ArtWorshipHistoryStyle (visual arts)MusicalLiteratureAsidePhilosophyTheologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

That music survives from the past with the inevitable loss of its original context is a truism that might be challenged above all by sacred music, on the grounds that a liturgy provides a timeless context within which music composed for its service can continue to fulfill its original purpose. Indeed, the Catholic liturgy that emerged from the Counter-Reformation after the Council of Trent (1545–63) – the Tridentine Rite, a normative form of late medieval Roman Use – persisted until the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), providing for four centuries a constant framework of worship (local variations and emphases of practice aside) for which music could long remain in use. As many a set of manuscript parts from the repertories of religious establishments in the former Habsburg lands of central and eastern Europe attests, Haydn's sacred music continued to be performed within the Catholic liturgy throughout the nineteenth century, a tradition often reflected in the nature of the performing material (a core of original eighteenth-century parts, supplemented by various accretions) and the recording of dates of performance on the reverse of the organ part or folder. Yet today Haydn's sacred music is seen to have suffered a loss of context more far-reaching than that undergone by some other genres of his output. The late masses for instance – works large enough to form independent musical entities – are performed as concert pieces, crossing boundaries of genre, style, and purpose between “church” and “chamber” more fundamental than the contextual changes affecting, say, the string quartets and symphonies.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0710.020

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.250
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

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
GenreOther

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

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicHistorical Influence and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207