Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through much of the history of the Judeo-Christian tradition the book of Psalms has been a primary resource for the liturgical and devotional life of both Jews and Christians. Psalms is one of the most familiar and frequently used books in the scriptures and it has had a huge influence on Western culture. The Hebrew Psalms is an anthology of 150 poems drawn from five different collections that have been combined into one book. Among them, Psalm 100, popularly known as the “Jubilate,” is perhaps the most frequently set psalm of praise. This lecture-recital will survey representative choral settings of Psalm 100 drawn from the works of selected composers writing from the sixteenth through the twentieth century. I will begin with an introductory discussion of the origin, genres, and liturgical settings of the Psalms. Following this I will examine the poetry of Psalm 100 in some detail. Finally, I will engage in a comparative analysis of the stylistic characteristics of the selected choral settings of Psalm 100, focusing especially on the different approaches to text setting taken by each composer. The composers I have selected for this study include: Josquin des Prez (c.1440-1521), William Byrd (c.1543-1623), Heinrich Schütz (1585-1672), Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750), Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (1809-1847), and John Høybye (b.1939).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".