Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qu’est-ce qu’une musique de fin de monde ? Avec son Introduction aux ténèbres (2009), le compositeur français Raphaël Cendo nous donne à entendre l’excès infini de la fin des fins, en travaillant à la fois ce qu’il appelle la « saturation » et l’« infrasaturation » du son à travers une partition où l’inachèvement est redéfini comme ce qui, dans l’art musical, est de trop, c’est-à-dire ce qui passe outre la création du monde. Une telle conception de la musique rappelle certains textes-clé du philosophe Jean-Luc Nancy (dont À l’écoute, TROP et « De l’œuvre et des œuvres »), où l’art des sons est repensé comme « ressentir » exemplaire, c’est-à-dire comme la structure même de la réflexion ou vibration d’un sens à la limite d’un monde finissant, jusqu’à l’excès d’une sorte de résurrection d’où le nom de Dieu a été évacué au nom de la musique des ténèbres. ABSTRACT What does music sound like at world’s end? With his Introduction aux ténèbres (Introduction to Darkness, 2009), French composer Raphaël Cendo scores the infinite excess of the end-all, simultaneously foregrounding what he calls the “saturation” and “infrasaturation” of sound. Indeed, his work redefines unfinishedness as that which lies in excess, overriding the creation of the world. This conception of music recalls some of French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy’s key writings on the matter (most notably Listening, TROP and “De l’œuvre et des œuvres”), which rethink the art of sound as a particularly significant and intense kind of “feeling” or “sense”. More specifically, what is at stake here is the very structure that reflects meaning or sense when it reaches its end—the end of the world—sounding and resounding its way towards a kind of nameless, “godless” resurrection, where the music of darkness is all that’s left.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".