MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595349844 · doi:10.30535/mto.17.2.9

What Do I Hear Now,<i>Groupwise</i>?

2011· article· en· W1595349844 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ciro Scotto

Bibliographic record

VenueMusic Theory Online · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1] Groupwise (1983) is a chamber work from Babbitt's third stylistic period consisting of flute (doubling alto flute and piccolo), violin, viola, violoncello, and piano.The structural foundation of compositions from this period is known in the literature as a superarray, a composite of multiple simultaneously unfolding all-partition arrays (Mead 1994).In a paper presented at the 1989 SMT national conference, I argued superarray compositions appear to be fundamentally different from the compositions of the preceding periods (Scotto 1989).They appear to embody a change in the aggregate compositional process where the perception of aggregate boundaries is essential to aurally differentiating one aggregate, the basic linear and columnar unit of aggregate composition, from another.The pitch duplications generated by a superarray obscure the perception of chromatic completion, which is one method of aurally differentiating aggregates.Perceiving aggregate boundaries in a superarray composition is analogous to perceiving state lines on a cross-country drive of the United States.The map directing the trip indicates crisp divisions between all states.The experience of those divisions while driving can be crisp, imperceptible, or anything in between.Sometimes, especially in the Plains States, the map may be the only indication that a state line has been crossed.Other times, the change is crisp and immediately detectable, such as crossing the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon, to Vancouver, Washington.[2] In a later article, I argued superarray compositions might also signal a change from a generative model of motivic structure to a holistic model where the development of motivic material is a non-hierarchical and non-teleological process (Scotto 2002).In this model, motives are analogous to plateaus that form from areas of coagulation and rise above a plane, and then they collapse and are absorbed back into the plane.Their common planar origin makes all plateaus motivic.Although the plateaus emanate from the same source, they can be structurally non-equivalent as well as similar or even equivalent.Associations among plateaus create a constantly developing non-hierarchical and non-teleological motivic surface.The contrapuntal arrangement of component arrays in the superarray of Groupwise facilitates making associations among plateaus.Moreover, while the pitch duplications of the superarray may obscure crisply perceiving aggregate boundaries, they may actually facilitate making structural associations among plateaus, which will also facilitate hearing the effect of aggregate

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusic Theory OnlineSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207