Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ida Rubenstein’s ambitious 1934 ballet Persephone brought together five of the most controversial artists of pre-World War II Europe. Rubenstein, a prominent and wealthy French ballerina, commissioned Andre Gide, Jacques Copeau, Igor Stravinsky, and Kurt Juss to bring the famous Homeric myth to the French stage. The result was a ballet that had moments of exquisite beauty, however ambiguous in its meaning. Tamara Levitz’s Modernist Mysteries: Persephone is an incredibly detailed micro-historical analysis of the conception and production of Persephone. Personal notes such as letters and diary entries are effectively used as evidence of the meaning behind each artist’s work. The most fascinating character discussed in Modernist Mysteries is the influential pederast writer Andre Gide. Gide contemplated the myth of Persephone for four decades, culminating in the 1934 production. The libretto contains hidden meaning alluding to Gide’s core beliefs on faith, love and art. Gide’s interpretation conflicted with the other Catholic collaborators, and each artist twisted each other’s work to fit their own interpretation of Persephone . Levitz’s scholarly monograph opens a window into the psyches of these significant thinkers, reading into every thought and motive like a biblical scholar. Levitz’s descriptive prose is superb, making Modernist Mysteries a pleasure to engage with. Modernist Mysteries: Persephone successfully adds to the scholarly conversation by presenting the thoughts of Persephone’s artistic collaborators during a specific timeframe.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".