Interchangeable parts : an examination and comparison of fixed and modular trombones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For most of the 20th century, trombonists have been limited to a few mass-produced instruments that, while generally of high quality, do not always fit each player or situation well. Players seeking to “fine-tune” their trombones often were forced to seek expensive and unpredictable custom modifications. Also, trombonists performing in widely different musical styles and performance settings often own a number of different instruments, each suitable for different situations (i.e. classical vs. jazz). Recently, a number of boutique trombone manufacturers have emerged, offering modular trombones as a solution to both problems. These instruments are designed with interchangeable bells, slides, valves, tuning slides, and leadpipes, which can quickly and easily be exchanged with other parts of different designs, materials, or both. This thesis examines a number of traditional (fixed) and modular trombones with two objectives. The first objective is to determine if certain combinations of modular trombones could be used to adequately emulate the sound and feel of the fixed trombones they are based on. The second objective is to examine ways in which the performer might use different modular parts to tailor their sound to their specific musical needs and aesthetic preferences. [...]
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".