MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991573224 · doi:10.7202/1013246ar

Tonal and Rhythmic-Metric Process in Brahms's Early C-Minor Scherzos

2012· article· en· W1991573224 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntersections Canadian Journal of Music · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPianoRhythmViolinMinor (academic)Piano sonataArtMovement (music)Period (music)CommunicationLiteratureVisual artsPsychologyArt historyHumanitiesAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scherzos Brahms composed for his Piano Quintet in F Minor, Op. 34 (1862; rev. 1864) and for the Dietrich-Schumann-Brahms F-A-E violin sonata (1853) are dramatic, C-minor pieces that allude to works of Beethoven's middle period. Both scherzos open with tonal and rhythmic-metric dissonance and end with tonal and rhythmic-metric consonance, yet there are significant refinements in Brahms's handling of these global progressions in the piano quintet scherzo. The piano quintet scherzo engages a smaller network of interrelated dissonances, intensifies these dissonances throughout the movement, and resolves them convincingly near the end of the scherzo.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.232 · 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