Report on the 2008 Mannes Institute for Advanced Studies in Music Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the Mannes Institute is best described as a high-level think tank for professional music scholars.It provides participants with the opportunity to study selected topics in depth in an intimate collegial setting more like a classroom than a conventional academic conference.In addition to plenary sessions and roundtable discussions, a rotating faculty of internationally renowned music scholars offers intensive workshops, each limited to fifteen Fellows who prepare for them diligently in advance.Lively discussions proceed from reading and listening assignments, enabling participants to learn from each other in a sustained and interactive way.Offered annually, on a different topic each spring, the Mannes Institute has been supported by private benefactors since its creation in 2001.(Further information on the Mannes Institute and its programs can be found at the Mannes Institute home page, http://216.71.55.88/mi/.)[2] This edition of the Mannes Institute celebrated the emergence of music scholarship in two overlapping genres of vernacular Western music-genres that over the last thirty years or so have undergone significant growth both in number of publications and in diversity of scholarly approaches.The Institute drew its 45 Fellows from universities and music schools across the United States and Canada as well as England, France, and Holland.The geographical and scholarly breadth of the Institute's Fellows and the resulting theoretical and historical approaches helped instill the workshops with energizing give-and-take, camaraderie, and the genuine pleasure of interacting with other established and emerging scholars dedicated to the music and its investigation.[3] At the opening plenary session, Institute co-chairs Walter Everett and Henry Martin gave brief introductory talks that focused on the growth of scholarship in Western popular music and jazz.Particularly satisfying was the presence at the Institute of many of the scholars who had made seminal contributions to the fields.Walter and Henry's enumeration of important publications, dissertations, new scholarly journals, and upcoming events helped frame the growth of scholarship in
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.257 | 0.112 |
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".