MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133046124

A Conductor's Guide to Tenor/Bass Choral Music by Canadian Composers

2018· dissertation· W7133046124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Brendon Ramsay

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2018
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChoirRepertoireMusicalThrivingKey (lock)SingingPublishingVocal music
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the presence of active tenor/bass choirs in Canada and the growing volume of repertoire for this voicing by Canadian composers. From Vancouver’s Chor Leoni to St. John’s Newman Sound, numerous tenor/bass choirs are thriving in Canada. Canadian tenor/bass choirs have long been actively commissioning some of the country’s finest choral composers to write specifically for tenor/bass voices. The result is a growing library of high-quality choral music by Canadian composers for tenor/bass voices that deserves greater recognition. Unfortunately, the contributions of Canadian composers have been greatly overlooked on recommended lists of tenor/bass choir music, however, and this research seeks to rectify that situation. This conductor’s guide contains analyses of one hundred selected works for tenor/bass ensembles by Canadian composers. All of the works have been written specifically for tenor/bass voices and are readily available to conductors and choirs. Both secular and sacred repertoire is represented. Analysis information includes date of composition, voicing, accompaniment, performance duration, publisher information, text source and complete texts, vocal ranges, general musical characteristics, and technical considerations. In addition, four of the selected works include an expanded analysis to assist conductors while preparing these specific works with tenor/bass choirs. This supplemental conductor’s guide includes background on the composer and composition, exploration of the text and connections with the music, and teaching strategies to help meet the identified challenges in the score. The music examined is appropriate for community and school ensembles comprising tenors and basses ranging in age from youth through adult groups. For the purposes of this study, it does not include barbershop style repertoire. Appendices include a representative list of active tenor/bass choirs in Canada, listings of the one hundred selected works by various parameters (i.e. sacred/secular, voicing, level, etc.), as well as a listing of additional original and re-voiced repertoire for tenor/bass choirs by Canadian composers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1240.046

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207