Bibliographic record
Abstract
La mediation represente tout ce qui se situe entre une œuvre et son public. D’un point de vue sociologique, l’analyse de l’espace-concert permet de mettre en lumiere comment la musique passe par des mediateurs. La presente analyse porte sur la mediation lors des concerts de musique classique presentes au Quebec. Nous mobiliserons des theories issues de la sociologie pour comprendre les strategies de representation de la musique. En plus de faire une breve retrospective de l’historique du concert occidental, nous nous penchons sur les facons de presenter la musique de nos jours. Nous presentons le concert comme un lieu de partage entre l’artiste et le public ou les interactions sont regies par un rite precis et respecte. Ces representations constituent un rituel tres encadre ou le neophyte doit apprendre rapidement les regles implicites. A l’aide d’observation participante, cette recherche presente les aspects de la mediation presents dans ces evenements musicaux. La musique est un objet fuyant et l’etude de sa representation permet d’etablir comment s’organisent les procedes de sa mise en scene. Mediation represents everything between an artwork and its audience. From a sociological point of view, the analysis of space-concert can highlight how music passes through mediators. This paper focuses on mediation during classical music concerts presented in Quebec. We mobilize sociological theories to understand musical representation strategies. After a brief review of the Western concert history, we look at some ways to present music today. We present the concert as a place for sharing between an artist and its public, where interactions are governed by specific and respected rites. These performances constitute a highly regulated ritual where the neophyte must quickly learn the unwritten rules. Using participant observation, this research underlines aspects of mediation presented in these musical events.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".