Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liszt scholarship as an academic specialty has evolved steadily since 1911, when the first "Liszt year" was celebrated in Europe. Although the composer's reputation declined during the decades following World War I, it began to rise again during the 1950s and 1960s. Today the field boasts a number of specialized periodicals and a wealth of miscellaneous publications, including important books, monographs, musical editions, and sound recordings issued during the years since author Michael Saffle's Franz Liszt: A Research and Information Guide (New York: Routledge, 2009) was prepared for publication. The present article cites and very briefly describes many, although by no means all, of the Liszt studies issued between 2008 and early 2011. Among the most important publications mentioned are Jonathan Kregor's Liszt as Transcriber (Cambridge University Press, 2010) and Kenneth Hamilton's After the Golden Age (Oxford University Press, 2008); two first-ever editions of orchestral and keyboard works underwritten by the Istituto Liszt (Bologna); and new or revised monographs by Ernst Burger, Serge Gut, Klára Hamburger, Laurence Le Diagon-Jacquin, Bruno Moysan, and Alexander Rehding. It also presents an introduction to Liszt-year activities, including celebrations and scholarly conferences held or—as of January 2011—scheduled to take place in Athens (Georgia), Budapest, Heidelberg, Lucca, New York, Ottawa, Utrecht, Weimar, and three French cities (Dijon, Rennes, and Strasbourg). Finally, it comments on the most important lacunae in contemporary Liszt literature, and it speculates on future directions in Liszt research, especially those associated with ongoing Internet and YouTube projects.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
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".