‘Nature’ as an Organising Principle: Approaches to chance and the natural in the work of John Cage, David Tudor and Alvin Lucier
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contrasts three composers’ relationships with the ‘natural’ and the uses of chance in electroacoustic works which follow from these relationships. John Cage is well known for use of chance methods as an organising principle in his works from the early 1950s onward, based on a professed desire to reflect ‘nature’ in art. Cage’s close colleague David Tudor presents a quite different relationship to the ‘natural’ in his live-electronic music, showing distinctly non-Cageian uses of chance means. Alvin Lucier, whose interaction with Cage and Tudor as a young ‘experimental’ composer was important, frequently describes his work as having a close connection to the ‘natural’, but shows a third quite different way of allowing this relationship to inform his work.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it