Discours sur la danse dans La Revue musicale : autour de Serge Lifar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la France de l’entre-deux-guerres, la scène chorégraphique parisienne est le lieu de profondes mutations. Durant les années 1920, les Ballets russes de Serge Diaghilev s’essoufflent et de nouvelles troupes, notamment celles des Ballets suédois, rivalisent d’audace et bousculent les rapports entre danse et musique. Puis, les années 1930 voient l’ascension de Serge Lifar, jeune danseur d’origine ukrainienne qui prend la tête de l’Opéra de Paris et conquiert la critique ainsi que le public parisien. Cet article examine le discours sur la danse au sein de La Revue musicale et plus particulièrement le débat que suscite la démarche de Lifar. Plus important périodique musical francophone de l’époque, La Revue musicale a fait la part belle aux disciplines artistiques relatives à l’art des sons et tout particulièrement à la danse. Sont ici examinés la place prépondérante occupée par la danse au sein de cet influent mensuel, l’accueil réservé aux créations de Lifar, ainsi que les idées débattues autour des rapports entre musique et danse.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".