The Pianist’s Perception as a Working and Research Method: Encountering Intertextual and Phenomenological Approaches in Piano Playing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The approach to my research topic “French Modernism in the 1920s” is to observe and analyze the methods I use as a pianist in dealing with multilayered artistic questions related to the French neoclassical repertoire, in particular, questions of intertextuality. Divergent performer-based approaches are needed because the musical aesthetics of this repertoire crucially deviates from German and earlier French traditions, and in musicological contexts, their intellectually challenging aesthetic purposes are somewhat misunderstood. My research aims are condensed into a single question: “What are the main characteristics of the pianist’s way of perceiving music in the context of French neoclassical piano music and its intertextuality.” This question formulates a thought experiment in which the aim is to observe the inherently analytical properties of piano playing, which I have named “the pianist’s perception,” based on Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s theories in Phenomenology of Perception (1945/2014).
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".