Bibliographic record
Abstract
A striking paradox of Haydn's career is that he traveled very little until the two London visits of the 1790s, yet achieved a degree of international eminence that was unequaled in his time. While composers such as Gluck (1714–87), Hasse (1699–1783) and Mozart (1756–91) traveled extensively they never achieved the same durable, self-perpetuating fame that accrued to Haydn during his lifetime. It was without any poetic hyperbole, therefore, that Griesinger was able to write the following encomium near the beginning of his celebrated biography of the composer. Haydn was founder of an epoch in musical culture, and the sound of his harmonies, universally understood, did more than all written matter together to promote the honor of German artistic talent in the remotest lands. Haydn's quartets and symphonies, his oratorios and church pieces, please alike on the Danube and on the Thames, on the Seine and the Neva, and they are treasured and admired across the sea as in our own part of the world. Throughout his biography Griesinger manages to convey the impression that fame was something that happened to Haydn and was not, as in the cases of Gluck, Hasse, Mozart, and others, something that had been actively sought. While this willfully ignores the more opportunistic, ambitious side of Haydn's personality it also conveniently plays into another aspect of the composer's character nurtured by Griesinger: the thoughtful creative figure who was isolated and who achieved greatness alone. On the many years at Eszterháza he was able to quote Haydn directly: “I was set apart from the world, there was nobody in my vicinity to confuse and annoy me in my course, and so I had to be original.”
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".