Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this research paper is to examine why concert promoters sometimes advertise sold‐out live music shows when nobody can buy tickets any longer. Design/methodology/approach Durkheim's theory of religion as a thrilling social activity is used to hypothesize that the advertising of sold‐out events reminds audiences that star performers are popular and therefore helps to generate the “buzz” around them. Interviews with a series of promoters from the USA, UK and Canada revealed, however, that they see more immediate and mundane reasons for advertising sold‐out shows, including building the artist's career profile and training consumers to buy next time round. Findings It was found that promoters could also organize the sales and advertising process to bring sold‐out events into being. While their explanations diverged from a Durkheimian schema, the results of their actions did not. In effect they serendipitously did cultural work to further the Durkheimian process without being consciously concerned by it as an explanation of motives. Originality/value This paper suggests that the Durkheimian model illuminates a point of connection between commerce and affect in the reception of star performances. Further research on live music using the model as a hypothesis may therefore be useful.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".