‘One for all …’: The case of the MIMIs awards and their exemplarity of Montréal's ‘<i>musiques émergentes</i>’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Award ceremonies have played a central role in popular music. One aspect of this role is their exemplarity: they place in full view what is to be valued in popular culture and, at the same time, they embody a sample of something larger than themselves, an ensemble. The Félix award, organised by ADISQ (Québec's music trade association), has played this role in Québec since 1979. However, in 1995, members of the underground scene, claiming that this award ceremony was not representative of all of Québec's musical families, created their own gala: the MIMIs (Montreal's International Music Initiative). This paper focuses on the exemplarity of this event for the Québec (Canada) ‘musiques émergentes’. In the first part, I look at one of the most visible faces of the MIMIs – its categories – to give an overview of the ways in which the event highlights its exemplarity of the totality of ‘musiques émergentes’ through their celebration. In the second part, I discuss the totalising processes implemented by the MIMIs to ensure that all artists, records or organisations could be considered in the pool of potential nominees.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".