MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995129887 · doi:10.3384/cu.2000.1525.0918105

Schoenberg and the Radical Economies of Harmonielehre

2009· article· en· W1995129887 on OpenAlex
Murray Dineen

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Unbound Journal of Current Cultural Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsMach numberLeft-wing politicsHarmonizationSubject (documents)Political scienceHistorySociologyLawPhilosophyAestheticsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines Schoenberg’s Harmonielehre as a text shaped by the influence of Central European science and politics. In accord with a severely economical approach to his subject, Schoenberg’s critique of figured bass and chorale harmonization is compared with Ernst Mach’s writings on scientific method. In support of this comparison, the article addresses the role played in Schoenberg’s political development by the Leftist editor and organizer, David J. Bach, one of Schoenberg’s closest childhood friends and a student of Mach. The comparison between Schoenberg and Mach, then, is drawn not only in terms of scientific method but also in light of the radical politics of the Austrian Left at the time, a politics for which both Mach and Schoenberg held sympathies. It should not be overlooked that later, however, they ceased to acknowledge these sympathies explicitly, and Schoenberg would appear to have abandoned them entirely.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.227 · 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