Bibliographic record
Abstract
Along with the emergence of topic theory, musicological discourse has witnessed a spectacular revival of rhetorical terminology. How can musical topics be defined vis-à-vis rhetorical figures? Any answer is fraught with paradox. Unlike Scheibe’s or Mattheson’sloci topici(which remained conceptually clearly anchored ininventio), Ratnerian topics span the range ofresandverba(ideas and words) orinventioandelocutio: like figures, topics are to be recognized as striking foreground events and definitions of them have been style-specific. This chapter discusses three existing examples of figure- versus topic-oriented analysis of solo keyboard sonatas, exploring the compatibility of topic and figure while enlarging the picture to include performance,voluntas(or intent of the speaker), and choice of instrument. The three analyses are Friedrich August Kanne’s (1821) of Mozart’s K. 309/i, Wye Allanbrook’s (1992) of Mozart’s K. 332/i, and Leonard Ratner’s (1980) of Haydn’s Hob. XVI:52/i.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".