Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper concerns the ontological status and authorship of the music in opera, \nrefining and expanding the work of Edward T. Cone (1989) and Peter Kivy (1991, 1994). Their \nproposal that opera characters live in a world fundamentally different from ours, a marvelous \nplace where one’s every thought and deed passes to music—and where song rather than speech \nis the normative mode of communication/expression—has not received the attention it deserves \nin opera studies. According to the prevailing understanding of operatic metaphysics, proposed by \nCarolyn Abbate (1991), the majority of an opera’s music is not part of the ontology of the \nopera’s fictional world. Music is used as a medium to represent non-musical \ncommunicative/expressive acts. Abbate’s theory is predicated upon the assumption that it is \npossible to separate the linguistic and musical components of characters’ utterances and accord \nthem different ontological statuses. The former is a part of the fictional world, but the latter is \nnot, and thus characters do not have epistemic access to it. The problem is that song is the fusion \nof words and music. An adequate account of the meaning and illocutionary force of such an \nutterance can only arise from the consideration of both constituent components. Denying \ncharacters epistemic access to the musical portion of the utterances they and others make hinders \ntheir ability to understand these utterances, and leaves the interpreter unable to explain how they \ngain the knowledge that causes them to act in the manner that they do. My extension of Cone’s \nand Kivy’s work offers a more comprehensive examination of the orchestral music, and \naddresses several neglected phenomena that are important to the study of modern opera.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".