Review of Peter Wright, ed., <i>Fifteenth-Century Liturgical Music, V: Settings of the Sanctus andAgnus dei.</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peter Wright's edition of English settings of the Sanctus and Agnus from the second quarter of the fifteenth century is the latest addition to the Fifteenth-Century Liturgical Music subseries of Early English Church Music, and the second to adopt a new format for notation and editorial apparatus. ... A generous critical apparatus for each work is clearly laid out, with highly valuable commentary in the General Remarks for many items. The editor's introduction discusses the policy of selection of repertory, the styles of the works edited, their age, sources, and composer attributions, the kinds of distortions in transmission that these English works undergo in continental manuscripts, some evidence for proportional planning in selected works, and the organisation of the volume, including the justification for assembling five proposed Sanctus-Agnus pairs. ... The central corpus of this edition affirms the strength of :the consistency of the new paradigm, while offering up an instructive sense of where there was scope for play with its parameters. The EECM enterprise, and editor Peter Wright, are to be congratulated warmly on this latest volume of the series.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".