MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390687664 · doi:10.1017/9781800109353.022

Instruments and performers

2023· other· en· W4390687664 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A few medieval instruments survive, and although most are very damaged and fragmentary it is still possible, given the necessary study, to learn about their original forms. Of those found and apparently made in England, there is a fourteenth- century straight trumpet in the Museum of London and a citole from the same century in the British Museum. Three late medieval celtic harps also survive, examples of the clarsach found in the Scottish royal accounts. The instruments recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose , which sank in 1545, are probably later than the period discussed in this book but late medieval in form: two fiddles, a dulcina , three three-hole pipes (two showing evidence of continental manufacture) and fragments of a tabor. Documentary evidence can sometimes support other kinds of information although it is not often helpful on its own. Much more useful is contemporary iconography, including illustrations of instruments in psalters and manuscripts of various literary works; several magnificent series of wood and stone carvings surviving in major churches at Beverley, Exeter, Lincoln, Manchester and Norwich, among others; and depictions of instrumentalists in the painted glass of some churches, such as the famous series in the Beauchamp Chapel in St Mary’s, Warwick. Such depictions may be accurately drawn, but one should not assume that they can be taken at face value. Did the illustrator really know what an instrument looked like, and how accurately did he depict it? There are few criteria for this: the level of detail can be considered, and how consistent the depiction is with other illustrations, both by that artist and by others; and one can see how realistic is the depiction of the minstrel's hands on the instrument, whether the method of bowing or plucking strings is likely to be physically possible and comfortable, and so on. This builds up a general impression of the picture's trustworthiness or otherwise, and this in turn enables comparison with other depictions, similarly assessed. The impression gained is always subjective, but, given enough illustrations of a particular type of instrument, it may be strong enough to stand as evidence and be tested against surviving instruments.

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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.017

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
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 topicMusicology and Musical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207