Waste paper as a music source: fragments preserved with the incunabula at the University Library in Wroclaw
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preserved with the incunabula at the University Library in Wroclaw are eighty-five fragments of music manuscripts. Alongside numerous antiphonaries, notated breviaries and missals, they also include a fragment with polyphonic music (PL-WRu XV Q1066). This contains three compositions typical of fifteenth-century Central European repertory. There are grounds for supposing that this fragment was written in Silesia during the second quarter of that century. Research into the music fragments from the University Library in Wroclaw has provided the author with a point of departure for discussing methodological issues. Questions are raised regarding the nature of fragmentary sources, with reference to the classification of historical sources proposed by Jerzy Topolski. The status of fragments differs from that of sources preserved intact, and this should be reflected in research procedures, such as the method of establishing provenance. The adoption of new methodological principles requires a critical re-examination of the interpretation of some musical fragments, including the sources preserved in Poland.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".