Toward a “Green” Organ: Organ Building and Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: This study examines the effectiveness of various types of alternative resources in organ building in order to determine whether a change to more sustainable materials would benefit or hinder the overall sound production of the instrument. The qualities of the metals and woods currently used in organ production (e.g. lead, walnut, etc.) have been prized for centuries, so the substitution of different, more sustainable materials must be considered with regards to the sonic alterations, as well as the financial implications, of using alternatives to make the organ more “green.”\n\n \n\nFive organ builders were interviewed regarding their views on sustainable materials. In addition, the author consulted the websites of nine national and four international organ builders for information about sustainability, indicating that each organ builder defines the term somewhat differently. Decisions on the woods and metals to be used in building or refurbishing an existing organ are based more on the visual appearance, the sound desired, and the potential for reuse of existing materials. A number of sustainability practices are currently in use by organ builders in the United States and Europe. These include the reuse of transportation boxes, efforts towards recycled metal and wood pipework, and the use of high efficiency lighting. \n\nThe investigations into sustainable practice that are presented here document a variety of approaches to sustainability in organ building in the United States, Canada and Europe. This research should assist in the evaluation of further efforts to conserve valuable resources while ensuring the high quality of sound that has characterized the organ throughout its long history.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".