Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter traces philosophy of music from the end of the ancient world until 1500. Following Boethius, medieval Latin writers regarded music as having three parts: musica mundana (Boethius’ cosmic music), musica humana (the harmony found in human souls) and musica instrumentalis (instrumental music). Music was usually regarded as a mathematical science more than a fine art. Only limited attention was paid to music as an aesthetic object or something able to arouse emotion. Medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophers were also heirs of ancient philosophy and contributed to the Western philosophical tradition. Authors in both the Latin and Arabic traditions debated whether music can promote religious experience. Figures discussed include Jacques of Liège, Hugh of Saint Victor, Al-Kindī, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Al-Fārābī, Johannes de Grocheo, Aurelian of Réôme, Bonaventure, Roger Bacon, Alan of Lille, Maimonides, Johannes Tinctoris, Aquinas, Johannes de Muris, Guy of Saint-Denis, Peter of Auvergne, Albertus Magnus and Marsilio Ficino.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.018 |
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".