MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116807033 · doi:10.7202/1014580ar

Classical Music Criticism at the Globe and Mail: 1936-2000

2013· article· en· W2116807033 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Colin Eatock

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian University Music Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperCriticismIdeologyMusicalPeriod (music)Style (visual arts)Classical musicPoliticsGlobePopular musicSociologyMedia studiesHistoryAestheticsLiteratureArtLawPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a study of developments in classical music criticism at the Toronto-based Globe and Mail newspaper from its inception in 1936 to the year 2000. Three distinct time-periods are identified, according to content, style and ideology: 1936-1952, a period of boosterism, when critics often saw it as their role to support Toronto's musicians and musical institutions; 1952-1987, when (during the lengthy tenure of critic John Kraglund) the newspaper took a more detached, non-partisan stance towards musicians and musical activities in the city; and 1987-2000, when critics began to address social, political, and economic issues governing classical music, and to question inherited cultural assumptions about the art form.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian University Music ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207