Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adopting the perspective of Langer’s understanding of music as a presentational symbol, the author questions what is symbolized in music. He argues that music symbolizes a state of “oneness” that Sandler describes as a confusion of self- and object-representations. Akin to substitutive formation, in whose guise we experience and recognize mystified what we have excluded from our consciousness, we consciously experience and recognize in music in a mystified manner this phenomenon that never entered into consciousness. Like the relation between the substitute and the substituted unconscious, which have a tertium comparationis (Freud), this phenomenon of our inner life is symbolized in music by common elements. As a result of its structural identity with bodily registered sensory experiences of our former “audio-phonic skin” (Anzieu) wrapping us in our intrauterine situation, music can also revive this envelope by its sound, tonal configurations, and rhythm, thus allowing us to remember this situation somatically and to recognize our former state of “oneness” in its guise. The feelings that we experience when listening to music that we like relate to this state. They are nameless because there is no subject who could “mentalize” them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".