MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2946464197 · doi:10.7202/1067417ar

L’espace sensible du héros dans Volo di notte de Luigi Dallapiccola

2019· article· fr· W2946464197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sylvain Samson

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Luigi Dallapiccola rédige lui-même ses livrets. Dans Volo di notte (1937-39), son premier opéra, la réécriture de l’œuvre de Saint Exupéry repose sur une redéfinition de l’espace du roman. La scène n’est plus neutre. Cet article pose la question de cet espace devenu sensible et signifiant où la technologie est interrogée au sein du genre opératique : à celle de l’aviation, Dallapiccola ajoute celle de la radiotélégraphie. La mise en scène se déploie dans les bureaux de l’aéropostale, lieu unique que la musique démultiplie d’espaces invisibles, entre lumière et pénombre, rêve et cauchemar. Le ciel devient un centre-absence ; l’espace de Fabien, héros condamné dans sa carlingue, est impalpable, mais résonne par le jeu du dédoublement permis par la voix du radiotélégraphiste. Ce messager moderne créé par Dallapiccola permet la perméabilité des espaces ; la radio est l’artifice technologique qui symbolise la distance, mais qui, paradoxalement, exacerbe l’authentique en provoquant l’acmé de la mimésis. On ne verra jamais Fabien sur la scène, incarné par une technologie qui absorbe le radiotélégraphiste devenant un messager-machine. Dallapiccola met en scène le visible et l’invisible, permettant un crescendo dramatique menant à un ultime espace du héros fondamentalement contrapuntique : la sphère sacrée, transversale à son œuvre.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSens public→Same topicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts→French-language works237,207→