Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Extending documentation and analysis frameworks for acousmatic music to performance/interpretation, from an information science point of view, will benefit the transmission and preservation of a repertoire with an idiosyncratic relation to performance and technology. The purpose of this paper is to present the outcome of a qualitative research aiming at providing a conceptual model theorizing the intricate relationships between the multiple dimensions of acousmatic music interpretation. Design/methodology/approach The methodology relies on the grounded theory. A total of 12 Interviews were conducted over a period of three years in France, Québec and Belgium, grounded in theoretical sampling. Findings The analysis outcome describes eight dimensions in acousmatic performance, namely, musical, technical, anthropological, psychological, social, cultural, linguistic and ontological. Discourse profiles are provided in relation to each participant. Theory development led to the distinction between documentation of interpretation as an expertise and as a profession. Research limitations/implications Data collection is limited to French-speaking experts, for historical and methodological reasons. Practical implications The model stemming from the analysis provides a framework for documentation which will benefit practitioners and organizations dedicated to the dissemination of acousmatic music. The model also provides this community with a tool for characterizing expert discourses about acousmatic performance and identifying content areas to further investigate. From a research point of view, the theorization leads to the specification of new directions and the identification of relevant epistemological frameworks. Originality/value This research brings a new vision of acousmatic interpretation, extending the literature on this repertoire’s performance with a more holistic perspective.
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 | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".