Conserver la musique enregistrée, 1877-2017. Document, œuvre, expérience : trois paradigmes témoins d’un rapport changeant à la musique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si le désir de conserver et garantir de façon pérenne l’accessibilité à la musique comme performance date du romantisme, ce n’est qu’avec l’invention de la phonographie qu’il devient réalisable. Cet article analyse les relations entre enregistrement, performance et conservation au cours d’un long vingtième siècle (1877-2017). Il met au jour l’interdépendance entre dispositions envers la musique enregistrée et opérations de production, de conservation et de mise à disposition de la performance. Cette interdépendance conduit aux déplacements du statut et de la nature de la performance et des dispositifs de sa conservation entre trois paradigmes apparus successivement mais aujourd’hui coexistants : les paradigmes scientifique, selon lequel la performance est un document ; artistique, où elle existe en tant qu’œuvre ; et expérientiel, où elle vaut avant tout comme moment vécu.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".