MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302299013 · doi:10.7202/1032695ar

The Eventual Premiere of Issipile: Porpora and the Palchetti War

2015· article· en· W2302299013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kurt Markstrom

Bibliographic record

VenueIntersections Canadian Journal of Music · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Musicological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndictmentContext (archaeology)OperaArtHistoryArt historyLawHumanitiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Where Porpora is concerned, misfortune is bound to ensue. Beware, in faith, of having anything to do with his company.” Metastasio’s damning indictment of Nicola Porpora in a letter published in his Opere (the offending passage omitted from Charles Burney’s English translation) is put into the context of the “Palchetti Wars” in Rome in 1732/33 and a court case against the impresario Francesco Cavanna of the Teatro della Dame. The court case was filed by a group of musicians, presumably led by Porpora, after the cancellation of the premiere of his Issipile during the spring of 1732 as a result of the closing of the theatres by the pope due to the controversy between the ambassadors of France and Austria over their boxes ( palchetti ) at the opera. In the court case between two of his old friends, Metastasio took the cause of the impresario over the composer because the case resulted in the bankruptcy of Cavanna and the closure of the della Dame. Although arrangements were made for the premiere of Porpora’s Issipile the following year at an alternate venue, the Teatro Pioli—which got around the theatrical ban by replacing its palchetti with a large balcony or palchettone, the della Dame, preserving its celebrated five tiers of palchetti —remained closed until 1738. This was probably part of the strategy of the directors of the delle Dame in dealing with the twists and turns of the palchetti controversy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.112 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntersections Canadian Journal of MusicSame topicDiverse Musicological StudiesFrench-language works237,207