Bibliographic record
Abstract
La multiplication des « Requiems » dans la modernité occidentale constitue un phénomène paradoxal dans notre monde apparemment dominé par l’athéisme et l’agnosticisme. L’auteur a choisi trois oeuvres — Un Requiem allemand de Brahms (1861-1869), le Requiem de Frank Martin (1971-1973) et les Requiem Canticles d’Igor Stravinsky (1965-1966). Il se propose de situer chacune dans son contexte intellectuel puis d’en décrire l’architecture afin d’en donner une interprétation théologique. Pour fonder celle-ci, l’argumentation analyse chacun des « Requiems » et met en évidence la réflexion théologique, explicitement présente dans les écrits de Stravinsky et dans la correspondance de Frank Martin, qui a accompagné leur travail de composition. La pensée propre à chaque musicien et la conscience d’une responsabilité d’ordre spirituel et intellectuel déterminent les solutions esthétiques adoptées. Elles permettent de comprendre la transformation que chacun opère du genre musical du requiem pour transmettre une espérance universelle à une humanité sécularisée.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".