Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the proliferation of string quartets in Canada between 1991 and 2014. The year 1991 is a pivotal one: it was end of a Golden Age of string quartet performance in Canada with the conclusion of the activities of the Orford, Vรกghy, and Purcell Quartets. It marked, also, the beginning of a New Golden Age of string quartet performance in Canada. Similar to their predecessors, the quartets of this new era have different levels of international success, but one could call it a New Golden Age from the sheer number of professional ensembles active in Canada from 1991 onward. The thesis begins with biographies of leading ensembles of this period: the Alcan, Arthur Leblanc, Claudel-Canimex, St. Lawrence, Lafayette, Penderecki, Molinari, Bozzini, Borealis, Tokai, Silverbirch, Cecilia, Afiara, and the New Orford Quartets. The fourth chapter researches the opportunities available to string quartets in Canada, including the Banff International String Quartet Competition. To supplement the biographies and to gain additional insight on the available resources, eight quartet players participated in interviews. Findings emphasize the need to create more support for Canadian musicians, including both professional ensembles and also young aspiring quartet ensembles, to stay in Canada. While the support from Canada Council and provincial art councils is unique to Canada, the number of residencies available in Canada is far behind what is on offer in the USA. The need to promote these ensembles on a greater level is reaffirmed.The proliferation of ensembles has resulted in an abundance of Canadian string quartet compositions. This thesis is supplemented by an appendix that lists over 280 Canadian string quartet compositions written after 1990. Together with Elliott's original list of over 370 works up to 1990, this complete list serves as a guide to promote Canadian string quartet compositions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".