Enjeux et évolution du système de notation dans Pression pour un(e) violoncelliste de Helmut Lachenmann
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente, dans les grandes lignes, le système de notation utilisé par Helmut Lachenmann dans Pression pour spécifier les actions que doit accomplir l’interprète sur les différentes parties du violoncelle (cordes, table d’harmonie, chevalet, cordier) mais aussi sur l’archet. Après avoir décrit succinctement les principales différences entre les deux éditions de l’oeuvre (1972 vs 2012), nous en expliquons cinq passages en montrant systématiquement les deux versions de la partition et en indiquant les minutages correspondant aux enregistrements vidéo de Lauren Radnofsky et David Stromberg. Ainsi le lecteur pourra apprécier la précision et l’évolution du système de notation, visualiser les gestes que réalisent les interprètes tout en suivant la partition et entrer ainsi pleinement dans l’univers sonore profondément inouï de cette oeuvre devenue un « classique » du répertoire pour violoncelle seul.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".