Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no direct evidence that Adémar performed as a singer at either the abbey of Saint Cybard or Saint Martial. Nevertheless, as in the case for identifying him as a composer, there is strong circumstantial evidence that he regularly sang the liturgy and perhaps even performed as a soloist. That evidence comes from a variety of sources, some pertinent to Adémar's status as a Benedictine monk and as a music scribe, others, from the literary and musical sources he himself left behind, more specific to Adémar as an individual. The picture that emerges is of a skilled musician who enjoyed intimate familiarity with the musical repertories practised at Saint Martial and Saint Cybard, who knew both the chants and the music theory that helped to organize them in the minds of those who sang them; in short, someone who had at least some claim to be both musicus and cantor . The surest and quickest way for someone in Adémar's position to obtain the level of musical knowledge he evinces would be through singing in the liturgy, first as a choir monk and then perhaps as a soloist. A non-singer who observed the liturgy and participated to the extent he was able could absorb a certain amount about the repertories, and could certainly read some of the available treatises in music theory that explain the underlying principles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.196 | 0.074 |
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".