Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après avoir souligné le caractère et la valeur exceptionnelles de l’ouvrage de Deliège, l’auteur présente ses propres exigences en matière d’histoire de la musique, il résume ce qui lui semble être les quatre points fondamentaux sous-tendant l’« intrigue » à la base du livre, et il en entreprend une discussion critique. Il s’agit tour à tour du rôle fondamental donné par Deliège au concept, de la position prêtée à Webern comme « père » de la musique de l’après-guerre, de l’importance des grammaires comme principe d’évaluation, et de la place qu’il accorde (ou n’accorde pas) à la perception dans l’évolution de la musique du XXe siècle. Jean-Jacques Nattiez propose, sur ce dernier point, une « contre-intrigue » qui présente une lecture différente du rôle accordé par Pierre Boulez à la prévision perceptive dans le processus compositionnel. Le tout s’achève par un éloge de la culture belge.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".