Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ed. Andy Hornby. [Lancaster: Andy Hornby], 2013. 281 pp. Music. Illus. Index. 120.00 + 3.00 pp and as far afield as Halifax and Blackburn. He does not appear to be directly related to the Winders who farmed in Wyresdale, though his book shares material with the other collections. Andy Hornby has not attempted to cherry-pick the collections, but presents all the non-sacred material in his sources, comprising dance music, marches, and song tunes. He presents a wealth of contextual material, with chapters on the geographical region as it was in the nineteenth century, on the Winder family and their books, general material on dance types and entertainments of the era, and a description of the Wyresdale Greensleeves Dance. This last was collected from the Winder family by Cecil Sharp in 1912. It is a curious and rather buffoonish performance in which three men dance in a circle, kick each other up the backside in turn, then cock their right legs over their joined hands and hop round in a circle. In this Sharp detected elements of the longsword dance and accordingly included it in The Sword Dances of Northern England (1913). It is very valuable to have a full notation and all the contextual information on this strange custom gathered into one place. The accounts of the Winder family and their books, with dates and family tree, are excellently and concisely clone. The story of the life of John Winder, the dancing master, is also well presented, complete with reproductions of his newspaper advertisements. .Generally, the photographs and copies from manuscript books and press cuttings are illuminating and well integrated. The chapter on Georgian entertainments fills in the background to social dance and other festivities in the region and explains its relationship both to London-based culture and to local traditions. The material on dance types strays into generalizations and assumptions based on twentieth-century revival practice. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.016 |
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".