Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researching and writing about Canadian musicians often involve complications and opportunities that may not arise when working in other areas.Musicological inquiry on Canadian topics is still a rather young endeavour.The published resource materials on many (perhaps most) individuals is incomplete, leaving researchers to explore primary sources such as personal contacts and limited media reports in order to fill in items such as biographical and other personal details.Recording the circumstances attending the creation of specific compositions is more complicated and often can only be documented through performers' reminiscences or by word of mouth.While the limitations of resource materials offer challenges to Canadian researchers, they also provide a wide range of possible areas of inquiry and the potential for intriguing new discoveries.In Canadian musicological research, Healey Willan is something of an exception.His importance to Canadian music as composer, teacher, performer, and conductor was recognized quickly after his arrival in Canada in 1913 and has been thoroughly documented.Writing about Willan's music, however, has focused on his choral and organ compositions-the works upon which his enduring international reputation is based and those that are, probably quite rightly, seen as his most important creations.His instrumental music has attracted considerably less scholarly investigation, and, until this study, no one has subjected his wind band output to any kind of historical/musical/critical evaluation, despite its seminal place in the history and development of Canadian wind band repertoire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.199 | 0.103 |
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".