MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971681474 · doi:10.1093/oq/kbn041

A Note from the Guest Editors

2008· article· en· W1971681474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Callum Clark, Linda Hutcheon, Michael Hutcheon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Opera Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperaArt historyArtPower (physics)Ring (chemistry)Visual artsInterpretation (philosophy)HistoryLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inspiration (and provocation) for this issue was the production of Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen by the Canadian Opera Company (COC) in September 2006. This was a first in a number of ways, locally and internationally. It was the first Canadian Ring cycle ever, and it inaugurated the new opera house, the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts, in Toronto. The man who was responsible for the house, the orchestra, and indeed the entire company, Artistic Director Richard Bradshaw, was in the pit. Sadly, within a year, he would be dead at the age of sixty-three, but he left behind him a legacy that was more than just a local one. It was his vision, his determination, and his sheer talent that made this Ring happen. And what kind of a Ring was it? As always, it was a “conductor's Ring”: we speak of the Barenboim Ring, the Solti Ring, and so in this case it was certainly the Bradshaw Ring, with reviewers from around the world commenting on both the nuance and the power of the orchestral interpretation. “Bradshaw demonstrated supreme command of the score,” his brisk tempi serving “to shape the larger paragraphs,” observed Barry Millington, while Anthony Tommasini wryly noted that although the performance was at times “curiously reticent (a touch of British reserve?), [Bradshaw] mostly drew a shimmering and assured account of the 16-hour score from the orchestra. To judge from their playing, the musicians sounded elated to be working in their acoustically vibrant and intimate [by MET standards!] 2000-seat new home.”1 And yet, Toronto's “many-splendored Ring” might well have been the first true “designer's Ring.” Regieoper (director's opera) is a well-known, if not universally appreciated, phenomenon, but with Michael Levine acting as designer of all four nights of the cycle, and making his directorial debut with Das Rheingold, something new happened, thanks to Bradshaw's vision. As the collaborative creation of Levine and three other directors—Atom Egoyan, François Girard, and Tim Albery—this Ring offered unity in multiplicity. Unlike the disparate Stuttgart Ring Project initiated by Klaus Zehelein in 2000, in which four different casts, production teams, and dramaturges performed the cycle under the single baton of then Music Director Lothar Zagrosek, the COC Ring was a thematically and visually cohesive whole whose successive parts traversed a century or so in time. And this cohesiveness arose from Levine's overarching concept and design—a conceptualization that brought two film directors into dialogue with what many feel to be Wagner's “cinematic” Gesamtkunstwerk. (This turned out to be utterly fitting because the Ring conveniently coincided with the Toronto International Film Festival.) In this issue, Helmut Reichenbächer explores some of the issues that arose from what David Levin, in “Four Directors, One Ring: Bringing the Tetralogy into the 21st Century,”2 called a convergence of aesthetic proclivities and talents marked by the COC Ring, bringing music drama into dialogue with some of the most interesting and adventurous work in contemporary art.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0150.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0100.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1200.107

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Opera QuarterlySame topicMusicology and Musical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207