Review: Improvising Improvisation: From Out of Philosophy, Music, Dance, and Literature by Gary Peters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| March 01 2020 Review: Improvising Improvisation: From Out of Philosophy, Music, Dance, and Literature by Gary Peters Gary Peters, Improvising Improvisation: From Out of Philosophy, Music, Dance, and Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017. 288 pages. Asher Tobin Chodos Asher Tobin Chodos University of California, San Diego Email: tobin.chodos@gmail.com Asher Tobin Chodos is a musicologist, pianist and composer. His research is published in Current Musicology, Jazz Perspectives, Critical Studies in Improvisation, and INSAM: The Journal of Contemporary Music, Art and Technology. A graduate of the Dave Brubeck Institute (as a jazz performer) and Columbia University (studied Classics), his doctoral dissertation (UC San Diego, 2019) is on the subject of automated music recommendation. He has received international attention for his work as a pianist and composer (www.tobinchodos.com). Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Journal of Popular Music Studies (2020) 32 (1): 126–129. https://doi.org/10.1525/jpms.2020.32.1.126 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Asher Tobin Chodos; Review: Improvising Improvisation: From Out of Philosophy, Music, Dance, and Literature by Gary Peters. Journal of Popular Music Studies 1 March 2020; 32 (1): 126–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/jpms.2020.32.1.126 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentJournal of Popular Music Studies Search In 2013, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, an organization funded by the Canadian government, awarded $2.5 million to support the foundation of the Institute for Critical Studies in Improvisation (ICSI).1 ICSI was an outgrowth of the research project known as Improvisation, Community and Social Practice (ICASP), and it upholds the commitment to social justice of its antecedent organization. In the words of executive director Ajay Heble, The institute is the biggest of its kind, and its utopic take on improvisation studies, in particular its commitment to social engagement and collaborative action, looms large. I mention it here because Gary Peters's Improvising Improvisation is clearly written against it. Combining... © 2020 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, https://www.ucpress.edu/journals/reprints-permissions.2020 You do not currently have access to this content.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.009 |
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".