How do Outsider Styles Become Legitimated? The Introduction of Bossa Nova in the Jazz Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the emergence and enactment of new musical styles from the perspective of critics. As the field absorbs a new style, the critics assess whether it belongs or not to the established tradition. In parallel, as musicians produce art works following the new style, critics classify and rate them. This signaling activity helps us to understand how the legitimacy process takes place vis-à-vis the production of new records. For that purpose, we explore the introduction of Bossa Nova in the Jazz field. Our results show that as this process evolved, records that combined Bossa Nova elements with Jazz were more likely to penetrate the core of the community. Conversely, musicians who played pure Bossa Nova were kept in the periphery. Finally, the assessment of “what is Bossa Nova” moved back and forth from positive statements (BN “is” Brazilian Music, inter alia) to negative statements (e.g. BN “is not” Jazz, inter alia). This swing between positive and negative statements accompanied distinctive inflection points in the institutionalization of Bossa Nova.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".