Productions musicales et publics : quelles interfaces ?La question des nouvelles textualités dans les musiques actuelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notre perception de l’œuvre musicale n’est en aucun cas directe. Que ce soit l’artiste (e.g. arrangeur, interprète, etc.), le technicien (i.e. ingénieur du son, éclairagiste, etc.) ou l’auditeur, ils ne peuvent percevoir l’œuvre qu’au travers d’un tiers-élément. Le matériau musical n’est donc perception qu’au travers d’interfaces, d’artefacts physiques et/ou numériques. Le domaine de la philologie musicale trouve alors une nouvelle pertinence dans l’exploration de ces interfaces entre l’individu et la production artistique. L’objectif de cet article est double : dresser un inventaire des différentes formes de textualité que l’on retrouve dans les productions de musiques actuelles ; et étudier le développement de cette multiplicité d’interfaces (visuelles, auditives, etc.) et leur implication dans la conception de l’œuvre comme spectacle, objet esthétique qui se donne à vivre, ressentir, expérimenter, s’élaborant au travers de ces nombreuses textualités.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
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".