MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417431276 · doi:10.1145/3748336.3748347

Knowing when to stop: insights from ecology for building catalogues, collections, and corpora

2025· article· en· W4417431276 on OpenAlexfundno aff
F. A. Moss

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Musicological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRepertoireRange (aeronautics)Diversity (politics)EstimatorMusicalMode (computer interface)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major locus of musicological activity-increasingly in the digital domain-is the cataloguing of sources, which requires large-scale and long-lasting research collaborations. Yet, the databases aiming at covering and representing musical repertoires are never quite complete, and scholars must contend with the question: how much are we still missing? This question structurally resembles the 'unseen species' problem in ecology, where the true number of species must be estimated from limited observations. In this case study, we apply for the first time the common Chao1 estimator to music, specifically to Gregorian chant. We find that, overall, upper bounds for repertoire coverage of the major chant genres range between 50 and 80 %. As expected, we find that Mass Propers are covered better than the Divine Office, though not overwhelmingly so. However, the accumulation curve suggests that those bounds are not tight: a stable ~5% of chants in sources indexed between 1993 and 2020 was new, so diminishing returns in terms of repertoire diversity are not yet to be expected. Our study demonstrates that these questions can be addressed empirically to inform musicological data-gathering, showing the potential of unseen species models in musicology.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0190.038
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Musicological StudiesFrench-language works237,207