MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133098920 · doi:10.1093/em/can038

Paris revivals: two operas of Lully and Quinault

2008· article· en· W2133098920 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Music · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyArtLiteratureHistorySpace (punctuation)Visual artsArt historyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility of two Lully operas being staged in Paris within the space of a month would have seemed remote even five years ago, and certainly fanciful 20 years ago. Yet, in January, Cadmus et Hermione was mounted at the Opéra Comique and in February, Thésée at the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées, showing that these works regarded as virtually unperformable a generation ago, are now becoming established in the repertory. There have, of course, been stagings elsewhere, notably at the Boston Early Music Festival, and other occasional productions in the UK, Australia, Canada and France. Significantly, the recent Parisian presentations were not single performances but short runs of five or six performances each, and were solidly booked out well in advance. These productions have laid a few myths to rest (for example, taken at appropriate tempo, they are not as long as many have imagined) while at the same time posing some questions that must be faced if audiences are to appreciate these works as their counterparts did in the 17th century.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.238 · 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