Bibliographic record
Abstract
What biblical critical insights might re-reading the Song of Songs through its contemporary musical afterlives produce? I propose that certain offbeat musical settings of the Song participate in the discursive composition of specifically postmodern versions of love (e.g. those of Berlant, Belsey, Illouz), and thereby disrupt the transmission of normalizing socio-romantic energies within what Lauren Berlant calls “the intimate public sphere.” In this intertextual case study, Ralph Vaughan Williams’ 1925Flos campi– a work usually praised for its harmonious reconciliation of sensual and spiritual musical moods and idioms – becomes a dystopic allegory of postmodern love. Gestating during WWI as Vaughan Williams served in France and Greece, then composed during a post-war decade of collective disenchantment with the Great War’s socio-political balance sheet,Flos campiconstitutes an ambivalent response to both the composer’s individual as well as a more collective experience of national post-war trauma. With help from Roland Boer’s Lacanian reading of the Song (2000), I locate this ambivalence in the composer’s enigmatic treatment of musical pastoralisms and modal-tonal harmonies as well as his expressive deployment of formal, motivic, and thematic repetition. The dissonant erotic semiotics that these techniques produce inFlos campican be enlisted today to challenge religio-rhetorical co-optations of the Song to bolster heteronormative institutions of love, sexuality, marriage and family by way of the Song’s supposedly timeless message that “Love Conquers All.” Correlatively, readingFlos campias a product of post-war trauma and an allegory of postmodern love invites biblical critics to hear the text’s pastoralisms with fresh “ears.”
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".