MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4328003896 · doi:10.1017/9781580466226.025

Prudence and sagacity of a provincial—Alexandre’s melodium

2003· other· en· W4328003896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPianoPrudenceCharacter (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)Quarter (Canadian coin)ArtLiteratureAdvertisingHistoryPhilosophyArt historyTheologyBusinessEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A music-lover who had heard Alexandre’s melodium organs highly praised in every quarter wanted to donate one to the church of the village where he lived. “This instrument”, he thought to himself, “is said to have a delightful sound quality, with a dreamy, mysterious character which makes it particularly suitable for the expression of religious sentiment; it’s moderately priced too, and anyone who can more or less manage a piano keyboard can play it without difficulty. That would be just what I need. But one should never buy a pig in a poke, so why don’t I go to Paris and judge for myself whether the eulogies lavished on Alexandre’s instrument by the press throughout Europe, and even in America, are justified? I’ll look at it, listen to it, try it out, and then decide whether to buy it.” The prudent music-lover came to Paris, obtained directions to Alexandre’s shop and lost no time in going there. To understand his extraordinary behaviour after examining the organs, you should know that Alexandre’s instruments, in addition to the bellows which produce a flow of air to vibrate the copper reeds, are equipped with a system of hammers designed to strike the reeds and set them in motion just at the moment when the air flow begins to have its effect. The vibration caused by the hammer striking the reed makes the action of the bellows more immediate, and avoids the brief delay which would otherwise occur in producing the sound. The action of the hammers striking the copper reeds also produces a small, dry sound, imperceptible when the bellows are functioning, but which can be heard quite distinctly from close by when only the keys are pressed. With this explanation, let us follow our music-lover into Alexandre’s large showroom, amongst the harmonious population of instruments displayed there. “I should like to buy an organ.” “Certainly, sir, we can arrange for you to listen to some and then you can choose.” “No, no, I don’t want you to arrange for me to listen to them. The skill of your players is bound to bamboozle a listener concerning the instruments’ failings, or even turn them into advantages.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0150.022
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical and Literary Studies→French-language works237,207→