Plainchant Fragments in Braga and Guimarães (11th – 15th century)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solange Corbin was the first scholar to regard the lozenged punctum employed as mi-sign (“special punctum”) as the main characteristic of a “Portuguese notation” derived from Aquitanian notation. Even though Corbin’s findings were later partially revised, the special punctum is still regarded as a graphical feature mostly peculiar to Portuguese manuscripts. This palaeographical study investigates the use of the special punctum and the changes that occurred to Aquitanian notation in 104 fragments dated from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries in the archives of Braga and Guimarães. This research demonstrates that the special punctum was the preferred scribal device employed to convey semitonal information, but that it was not systematically employed. Over the course of four centuries Portugal witnessed the coexistence of two parallel systems for notating plainchant. While both systems employed the typical elements of Aquitanian notation on a single line without clefs, one was perfectly diastematic while the other conveyed no indications of semitones.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".