The Role of Proportion in the First-Movement Expositions of Mozart's String Quintets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at discussing the role of balance and proportion in the expositional scope within a Classical Sonata Form movement. While using the approach, model and labels proposed by James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy in Elements of Sonata Theory (2006), it also challenges the application of some of their analytical tools. Throughout this study, special attention is given to different treatments of expositional spaces, including a few significantly difficult cases for the repertoire. The intention here is to observe the interaction between these spaces in light of the dual function in the expositional trajectory: (1) to fulfill the harmonic requirement in destabilizing the tonic key; and (2) to attain a rhetorically reasonable organization of thematic material (HEPOKOSKI; DARCY, 2006, p.18). For this purpose, a careful examination of the medial caesura and the essential expositional closure is also taken into account throughout the present analysis. Finally, however limited the repertoire range used in this specific research, the present study fosters the idea of proportion and balance as feasible arguments (among many others) not only in determining the dimensions of expositional spaces, but also in the holistic process of analyzing entire Classical sonata forms as hermetic units.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".