Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers the reception of Cornelius Cardew’s music at the Warsaw Autumn festival between 1960 and 1970. At that time, the state-backed festival—organized since 1956 in the capital of the People’s Republic of Poland—was considered to be an important and liberal showcase of European avant-garde from both sides of the Iron Curtain. In the article, I primarily look at the consequences of programming Cardew’s music at the festival held in a country belonging to the Eastern Block of Soviet Satellite States. I discuss further, how music critics and polish intellectuals interpreted Cardew’s music, especially his Treatise , and The Great Learning , and condemned it for their allegedly communist, pro-Chinese overtones, and explicit Maoist and Confucianist references. The rejection of Cardew’s music in Poland resulted from a bias towards his socialist, collective, and emancipatory tendencies expressed by his music. The article is based on my archival research conducted in the archive of the Polish Composers Union, the Warsaw Autumn archive, Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basel and Deutsches Polen - Institute in Darmstadt.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".