A composicao de um movimento de Voi(rex) : da ideia formal a estrutura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Por meio de entrevistas que simulam a atividade do compositor e apoiando-se em seus diferentes vestigios (rascunhos, planos, patches de computador etc.), os autores reconstituiram em detalhes as etapas e os procedimentos utilizados na composicao de Voi(rex) (2002), de Philippe Leroux. Este artigo apresenta a analise completa da estrutura do quarto Movimento da obra, baseada na ideia formal inicial: o encaixe progressivo dos “blocos gigognes” separados por breves transicoes. Esta ideia, notada sob forma de um diagrama, tinha varias implicacoes musicais para o compositor, nao explicitadas em seus documentos de trabalho. Em cada uma das etapas da composicao, algumas dessas implicacoes emergiram, outras foram transformadas, outras foram abandonadas. Analisando o modo como o compositor compreende cada etapa do seu processo de composicao, podemos explicitar todas estas implicacoes e suas interacoes com os outros elementos em jogo na composicao do quarto Movimento de Voi(rex). Esta analise permite definir as nocoes de ideia, plano e estrutura no contexto da atividade de composicao musical.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".