Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the span of almost forty years that Haydn wrote symphonies, the nature of the genre changed dramatically, from a type of composition that served various musical and social functions of the ancien régime to a highly defined genre that would stand at the center of musical life for the next two centuries. New concert societies late in the eighteenth century broadened the class-base of the symphonic audience, and Haydn proved extraordinarily adept at making the transition. Throughout his career he gradually reshaped the nature of the symphony, and in the end provided an enduring model for future practitioners of the genre. Symphonies teemed in Vienna during the mid-eighteenth century, and composers such as Matthias Monn, Wagenseil, Dittersdorf, and Hofmann provided much originality. Nevertheless, we owe the emergence of the symphonic tradition primarily to Haydn, and even major composers of the twentieth century, Prokofiev among them, have acknowledged that debt. As a composer of concertos Haydn's achievements are less striking, although because of the prominence of the symphonies we tend to underestimate the concertos. Because Haydn's symphonies still speak to us with a relevance that has traversed two centuries, we sometimes forget that in the eighteenth century vocal music was considered pre-eminent. With opinion such as this as the common currency, it should not surprise us that Haydn, in his autobiographical sketch from 1776, listed only vocal works among those he considered his finest. Late nineteenth-century writers such as Eduard Hanslick contributed to another misconception about eighteenth-century symphonic works, in their insistence on these as absolute or pure music.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".