MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410772888 · doi:10.21083/csieci.v10i2.3212

Social Virtuosity and the Improvising Voice; Phil Minton & Maggie Nicols Interviewed by Chris Tonelli

2016· article· en· W2410772888 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Chris Tonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Studies in Improvisation / Études critiques en improvisation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsImprovisationJazzPoliticsArtVisual artsSociologyPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phil Minton and Maggie Nicols are two of the most important figures in field of free improvised vocal music. Their significance derives not only from their longevity—Nicols and Minton have each been consistently active in the U.K. and global improvised music scenes for nearly fifty years—or the innovations they are responsible for—Minton's album A Doughnut in Both Hands represents one of the earliest solo vocal free jazz/improvisation recording projects, Nicols' Feminist Improvising Group represented a progressive intervention into the male-privileging socio-politics of free jazz/improvisation communities in the 1970s and 1980s, and both Nicols and Minton are important figures in the practice of fostering choral improvisation—but also for the ethics governing the ways their practices have developed. This interview and critical introduction explore the shape of the ethico-aesthetics behind both their personal improvisational practices and the inclusive community improvisation projects they have developed, including Minton's Feral Choirs to Nicols' The Gathering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.025
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Studies in Improvisation / Études critiques en improvisationSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207