Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Richard Wagner has become an industry in itself (cf. Hollinrake, Nietzsche... ; Kohler). From the perspective of a Nietzsche-scholar, the friendship cannot be ignored, since it gives valuable insight into the formative years of the young professor and the evolution of his thought, illuminating nearly every step of the way along Nietzsche's path from classical philologist to philosopher. Inquiry into this period of his life also sheds light on Nietzsche's relationship to the arts, especially music, a subject from which Nietzsche was never able to divorce himself or his philosophy. After all, Nietzsche hardly published a work that was not in some part devoted to music, and examination of his personal correspondence reveals that his opinions on music constituted a major component of his thoughts, activities and friendships, both public and private. But Nietzsche was not merely a listener. He was a composer in his own right, a fact that had gone unappreciated in Nietzsche research until after the Second World War. With the publication of Der musikalische Nachlass in 1976, a fresh interest in Nietzsche's music was awakened. This collection of the philosopher's musical works has led to a number of recordings of them, and his Lieder share another with those of Franz Liszt. The present study will attempt to suggest how Nietzsche's musical activity might be integrated into our consideration of his philosophy. Nietzsche's compositions are vital to understanding his views on the process of creation in general, especially as they evolved during his friendship with Wagner. Nietzsche himself offered up an implicit command along this line in a letter to Malwyda von Meisenberg in January of 1875:
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".