Parisian Music-Hall Ballet, 1871–1913. By Sarah Gutsche-Miller.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fate of French ballet in the nineteenth century is a familiar story: following a golden age of Romantic ballet-pantomime at the Paris Opéra—a creative era that included such imaginative works as La Sylphide, Giselle, Le Corsaire, and Coppélia—French ballet suffered a period of stagnation and decline until Sergei Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes conquered Paris in a flash of brilliant colour, with glamorous and transgressive productions that reinvigorated French ballet culture and restored it to its former glory. Or so the conventional histories of ballet would have us believe. The mythic narrative of the Ballets Russes’s redemption of a moribund art form has long been propagated by dance scholars and cultural historians. Tellingly, Jennifer Homans’s best-selling survey of ballet history (Apollo’s Angels (New York, 2010)) features the section heading ‘Part Two: Light from the East’, and in a recent study of early twentieth-century French ballet as a testing ground for emerging ideologies of nationalism, modernism, and gender identity, Ilyana Karthas alleges that the arrival of the Ballets Russes inspired a ‘new fervour for ballet’ among Parisians, who had essentially lost interest in the genre (When Ballet Became French (Montreal, 2015), 303). A notable exception is Jane Pritchard, who has criticized traditional ‘masterworks’ histories that readily shift from the premiere of Coppélia in Paris, 1870, to the ballets of Marius Petipa in late nineteenth-century Russia (‘Collaborative Creations for the Alhambra and the Empire’, Dance Chronicle, 24 1 (2001), 55–82).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.042 |
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".