Les premières éditions de pièces de clavecin en France, œuvres musicales et économie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors que les manuscrits de pièces de clavecin circulent en Europe dès les années 1620, le premier livre édité en France voit le jour cinquante ans plus tard, en 1670. À partir de cette date, les recueils pour cet instrument en soliste vont se multiplier. De 1670 à 1707, neuf compositeurs vont publier à Paris à compte d’auteur : Chambonnières (1670), Lebègue (1677 et 1687), Jacquet de la Guerre (1687 et 1707), d’Anglebert (1689), Marchand (1699 et 1702), Clérambault (1704), Dandrieu (1704), Le Roux (1705) et Rameau (1706). Nous tenterons d’expliquer l’apparition de cette nouvelle source musicale et les raisons de son développement au début du xviiie siècle. Le progrès technique mais surtout les intérêts économiques tiennent une place primordiale dans l’histoire de l’édition du clavecin. Chaque recueil est conçu dans des circonstances particulières où le compositeur, en fonction de sa situation pécuniaire et de ses choix financiers, va mettre au jour un format d’œuvres, devenu aujourd’hui une source musicale principale.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".