MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781633623 · doi:10.4000/12i34

Bruits « entonnés » et sons « convenables » : Russolo et Schaeffer ou la domestication des bruits

2008· article· fr· W2781633623 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFiligrane · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toute culture musicale contient une part de bruit, au sens acoustique du terme, et l’exploite à un degré plus ou moins élevé. Cependant, seule la musique moderne l’a revendiquée en tant que telle. Ce n’est donc pas un hasard que les deux traités les plus célèbres sur le bruit et la musique datent du XXème siècle, le premier – L’art des bruits (1913) de Luigi Russolo – étant conçu comme un bref manifeste réclamant le droit musical au bruit, le second – le Traité des objets musicaux (1966) de Pierre Schaeffer – se posant comme une théorisation très élaborée des bruits en relation avec la musique. Le présent article tentera de montrer que, vu sous un angle particulier, le traité de Schaeffer se situe dans la continuité du manifeste de Russolo. En effet, nous soutiendrons que, loin de « libérer » le bruit, comme on a tendance parfois à le penser, ces deux écrits s’efforcent de le domestiquer.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it