Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on relations between art and politics has its tradition. However, it mainly refers to literature, whose part, as far as its authors’ intentions are concerned, is of a political character, in a lesser degree – of a picture. Sound, especially if it is not linked to a text and/or a picture, is considerably more seldom analyzed from the point of view of its importance in politics. As long as a word and a picture happen to convey unequivocal political meaning, qualifi ed as such by most recipients, sound cannot be obviously considered a political message. It is questionable whether music can convey any meaning in whatever sense. If one can manage to suppress this doubt, it will result in a question how to construe the senses conveyed through the medium of melodic – rhythmic structures. However, the findings in the field of widely understood humanities affirm that music serves as a creator’s message directed to both individual and collective receivers. Political science studies often bring up a matter of communication between authorities and the subjects (in authoritarian regimes), and also between representatives of a nation or people claiming their role and electorate (in democratic regimes). At the end of the 1960s, American and Canadian scientists made room for music, one of the most widespread communicators, i. a. in political sphere. At that time, interdisciplinary teams including American sociologists, political scientists, culture and media experts undertook multi – faceted research, focused mainly on popular 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 it