On the Playing Style and Repertory of Polish Bagpipe Players / Zbigniew Jerzy Przerembski.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although bagpipe culture has a long history, reaching back to the Middle Ages, we are more familiar with only its latest developments. The question: what did the Polish pipers play? can be given a reasonably comprehensive answer only in relation to the period going back not much more than a century. We can draw conclusions about the earliest repertory of Polish bagpipe players, from the period of the first Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, on the basis of sources from that time, and by analogy with later performance practice. However, information from historical sources is almost exclusively indirect; thus the assumption that the Old Polish bagpipe repertory was similar to the later one is probably close to the truth, but it is difficult to say to what degree. The earliest detailed records of bagpipe music date only from the period between the two world wars, the 1920s, the 1930s. The earliest sources of history of bagpipes in Poland mention mainly the circumstances under which they were played. Iconographic sources confirm the familiarity of this instrument in Poland from at least the first half of the fourteenth century. Already by two centuries later, chronicles mention bagpipe players in cappellas employed at royal, magnates’ and nobles’ courts, sometimes also in city and military bands; also, beginning from the last quarter of the sixteenth century, tax censuses and inspections of landed property
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".