Bibliographic record
Abstract
GENESIS OF A CREATION A trial The trial of the Archangel of evil as a metaphorical interpretation of human incomprehension when faced with pure and unjustifiable horror. Chants Libres, a contemporary opera company based in Montreal [See TFl 2], presented its thirteenth creation last spring. Pauline Vaillancourt conceived the basic idea of the opera as a response to the unique atmosphere predominating in the months following September 11th. After the shock of the attack, the reaction of the Bush administration led to the depressing sense, at least outside the United States, of a complete absence of individual free will. A hope had arisen that the horror inflicted on the heart of America's proudest city might provoke questioning of the international policies of the United States and its allies; that the average American citizen, becoming a victim for once, might begin to sympathize with the other victims of the world. Soon the Bush government, through its propaganda and policies, showed clearly what its reaction would be, and it was not what people were hoping for. People felt doomed because war, horror, and atrocities were once again on the agenda, and felt damned because they had no power to avoid them. Vaillancourt, working on this concept with writer Alexis Nouss, struck upon the idea of a trial against evil. Of course evil, even personified as an Archangel, cannot be embodied; though its effects are concrete, it defies any kind of physical description other than a mystical one. Only through its works can evil be perceived and so any trial would have to be conducted without its physical presence, in absentia. Another premise had to be established before the libretto could be constructed: the question of time. Could a trial against evil be limited in chronological scope? If one agrees, as the creators did, that evil has existed for at least as long as humanity, there is a good chance that our reflections on evil's action against and through us also dates as far back. Since the trial is a symbol of this process of reflection, it was decided that it should be a limitless proceeding, with the opera merely presenting a single session of it. This point of view rendered the subsequent choice of witnesses more coherent since the actual number of cases presented was not significant. The same consideration applied to the type of witnesses: any kind of evil deed could be presented, not just the most important and representative, since the infinite instances of evil's action in human history could be heard at any other preceding or subsequent session. With this in mind, Alexis Nouss sketched out a libretto focusing on the stories of three witnesses. Their individual texts constitute separated entities and do not interact. The three characters appear one after another and tell their stories, as in a real trial. Even though trials, especially public ones, are often equal in drama and tension to some of the best stage works (and sometimes to some of the best circus shows!), this format presented the real danger of a lack of dynamism. However, the most obvious and efficient way to counter this-the introduction of dialogues or other interactions between the characters-could seriously undermine the strength of the text, the expressiveness of which would be embodied in the way the individual stories were told, rather than in a theatrical tension-building between characters. A solution to this dilemma was found through the introduction of the character of the Judge. It should be noted that this exploratory and investigative process was contemporaneous with the writing. The Judge was not added later to solve possible problems; rather, his character emerged while the witnesses' texts were being created. In establishing the structural context of the show in his first appearance, the Judge acts as a logical link between the witnesses' presentations. In the dynamic of the piece, he holds a similar function to the recitative sections of a baroque or classical opera, while the witnesses' performances correspond to the arias. …
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".