Bibliographic record
Abstract
At some level, reviewing always involves thinking about Venn diagrams: interrelationships between the author's intellectual milieu and probable readership, and those of the reviewer. It's a footnote thing: diagrams with a great deal of overlap can yield reviews where one forgets that the boundaries exist; those with fewer overlapping names often signal a new authorial perspective that can jolt a reviewer into a fruitful reassessment of a seemingly familiar subject. Emmanuel Reibel is aiming for the latter category of response: he wants to put forward a new, outsider, historiography that avoids both the preoccupations of what he calls ‘[l]a musicologie américaine’ with questions of ideology, and the ‘monumentalist’ concentration of the literary community on those critics who write best—figures such as Berlioz and Jules Janin (p. 16). Actively distancing himself from a swath of ‘American’ (actually including Canadian and Australian) scholars whose work stretches over forty years, he sets his sights on providing a structural analysis of the forms, subject-positioning, rhetorical ploys, and tone of the written texts of music criticism. To parody a musicological cliché, he wants to study the workings of ‘the criticism itself’.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".