MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390687596 · doi:10.1017/9781800109353.023

The instrumental repertory in England

2023· other· en· W4390687596 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1958, Frank Harrison noted that [Pre-Tudor] examples of secular music are few and of minor importance, and I have not dealt with them here. Nothing identifiable as minstrel music has survived, and the history of minstrelsy belongs to the study of social life and customs rather than of actual music. The history of musical instruments other than the organ is in much the same case, for there is no evidence that any instruments but the organ were normally played in church, and the musical remains are restricted to a small group of instrumental dances. Thus secular music was dismissed from the authoritative work on music in medieval Britain. One can hardly blame Harrison, for surviving examples of medieval English secular music are not only few in number, but so enigmatic that the precise problems are elusive, let alone the solutions. Some intriguing questions are raised by his remarks, nevertheless. It may be true that ‘nothing identifiable as minstrel music has survived’, but it is also true that we should probably not recognise a piece of minstrel music if we saw it. For this reason the surviving examples of secular music, few and enigmatic as they are, become of prime importance to any study of minstrelsy. Could any of these survivals be minstrels’ music? – and, if so, could the minstrels have read the written music or performed from it? Harrison also restricted himself to English sources, a pragmatic if rather limiting decision. At the time he wrote, it was sensible not to rely on continental evidence, because it was by no means clear that such evidence would be relevant to English music. Sixty years on, it is certain that the British Isles were not culturally isolated from the continent of Europe, and that minstrel practices in England and Scotland were likely to be influenced by those in continental Europe. There were opportunities for exchange of information during the visits of continental nobles to the English Court, and in the travels of the English abroad. As we have seen, some foreign minstrels remained in Court for weeks or even months at a time, and we should expect them to share their repertories and methods with their English colleagues, and vice versa . That was, after all, the purpose of the minstrel schools, to which English minstrels travelled.

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)0.001
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCulinary Culture and Tourism→French-language works237,207→