Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rite of Spring has consistently been depicted as an epoch-making piece of music and is often described as the most influential musical work of the twentieth century. No mention of the piece is complete without drawing attention to its scandalous premiere as a ballet in Paris on May 29, 1913, which ended in a riot. The work continues to be controversial in a variety of ways today. Academics disagree on several fronts: was the controversy surrounding the original performance due to the choreography rather than the music? How quickly did the audience response change from derision to congratulation? Does the Rite of Spring really break from the past or does it demonstrate significant continuity with other compositions? Does the work respect theories of composition and can it be analyzed theoretically? And, intriguingly, is Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring an amoral work that celebrates inhumanity? Answers to these questions are proposed, based on the analysis of reviews of the early performances, as well as on academic writing about the work over several decades. The questions are further related to a review of a performance of the work in Toronto (2012). While the Rite of Spring may have a lessened ability to shock modern audiences, its vitality and controversial nature remain as dramatic as ever.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".