MUSICAL IMPROVISATION IN THE AGE OF BEETHOVEN AND ‘OPEN’ FORMS FONDAZIONE GIORGIO CINI, ISOLA DI SAN GIORGIO MAGGIORE, VENICE, 28–29 NOVEMBER 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multi-dimensional topic of improvisation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been explored in various recent publications and international conferences. For example, the proceedings of the conference L’improvvisazione nella musica occidentale del Settecento all’Ottocento, held at La Spezia in 2010, were published as Beyond Notes: Improvisation in Western Music of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), edited by Rudolf Rasch. Rasch (Universiteit Utrecht) was one of several participants at La Spezia who reappeared in Venice for the third in a series of conferences on improvisation, organized like the previous two by the Fondazione Giorgio Cini. The first two (November 2012, 2013) dealt with different eras. ‘Musical Improvisation in the Age of Beethoven’, held over two days, brought together scholars of varying provenance, from Belgium, Canada, Germany, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The first day of papers was followed by an evening recital from Mozart scholar and fortepianist John Irving (Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance) and violinist Davide Amodio. Scott Burnham (Princeton University), scheduled to speak on the second day, was absent, but a ‘draft outline’ of his paper was read by William Caplin (McGill University) and distributed as a handout. In the face of an unreliable broadband connection, Elaine Sisman (Columbia University) read her paper over Skype and participated frequently in the other sessions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".