MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394682024 · doi:10.1515/9781805432449-004

Preface and Acknowledgements

2024· book-chapter· en· W4394682024 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jeremy Dibble

Bibliographic record

VenueBoydell and Brewer eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman auditory perception and evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrinity College, University of CambridgeUniversity of GlasgowUniversity of LeedsKing's College LondonYale UniversityUniversity of CambridgeRoyal Irish AcademyNorthwestern UniversityMcMaster University
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

M y first contact with the music of Stanford was as a nine-year-old boy singing 'Windy Nights' (from A Child's Garland of Songs Op. 30) at the Stratford Festival; it was a song I particularly enjoyed, and to hear it sung many years later by Stephen Varcoe (surely one of this country's finest executants of English song) brought back many happy and vivid memories.Further acquaintance with Stanford's music included the immutable Evening Service in B flat, 'Trottin' to the fair', the Three Latin Motets, Op. 38 and 'The Blue Bird', all of which, in their different apparels, struck me as strikingly original in design and expression.Thanks principally to the work of a highly imaginative and energetic music master, John Rippin, my knowledge of Stanford's church music broadened at grammar school.It was he who initially opened my eyes to Stanford's impeccable craftsmanship and originality and made me aware of the 'other' Stanford, a much-neglected composer of works such as the 'Irish' Symphony, the Songs of the Sea, the Songs of the Fleet, the funeral march from Becket, the Fourth Irish Rhapsody and the Second Piano Concerto.The quality, diversity and flawless professionalism of these rarely performed pieces took me aback and their distinctiveness seemed hard to reconcile with much of the casual criticism that dismissed Stanford as little more than a minor eclectic.During the late 1970s, as an undergraduate at Trinity College, Cambridge (where, to my delight, Stanford had been organist for nineteen years), my interest developed into a passion.With the encouragement of Philip Radcliffe, Richard Marlow and Peter Le Huray, who were largely responsible for encouraging me to pursue serious research into both Parry and Stanford, I began gradually to realise how little in the way of critical writings existed on both composers.It was to Parry that I devoted my initial attention, but while my work focused on him, it seemed inevitable that I would also feel the compulsion to make a study of Stanford at a later date.Significantly, this compulsion was founded not on the common textbook 'partnership' -'Parry 'n Stanford', the English Musical Renaissance's answer to Marks and Spencer -but on a desire to promote the essential and marked differences between the two men and their music, differences defined by aspiration, temperament and personal circumstances.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3580.277

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.202 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBoydell and Brewer eBooksSame topicHuman auditory perception and evaluationFrench-language works237,207