Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the Leipzig publisher Breitkopf & Härtel decided to print the collected works of Joseph Haydn in 1799, the firm actually meant the complete edition of the keyboard works. Clavier music was highly marketable, satisfying the insatiable demand by amateurs making music in the drawing room, and Breitkopf hoped to expand and increase their market through this medium. The twelve volumes of the final product – ambitiously titled Oeuvres complettes de Joseph Haydn (1800–6) – comprises solo and accompanied sonatas (trios), and solo and part-songs with keyboard accompaniment. Interestingly, accompanied songs were still considered keyboard rather than vocal music at the time, just as they had been in various German collections since the mid-eighteenth century. Volumes VIII–IX of the Oeuvres complettes include nearly all the German Lieder, the English canzonettas, the cantata Arianna a Naxos , and the thirteen part-songs for three or four voices – exactly the repertory discussed in this chapter. What was Haydn's most popular music around 1800, however, would later become the most neglected. Viewed as precursors to the great song repertories of Franz Schubert and Robert Schumann, and damned for their inferior texts, Haydn's songs were regarded as unworthy of a composer possessing his talents and abilities. Like the solo keyboard sonatas, which since the 1970s have formed part of the regularly performed sonata repertory and are no longer viewed as inferior predecessors to the sonatas of Mozart and Beethoven, Haydn's songs are gradually being rediscovered by present-day singers and keyboardists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.017 |
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".