Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lorsque l’on evoque la symphonie en France au milieu du XIXe siecle, on ne retient generalement que le nom de Berlioz et l’on insiste sur une desaffection du genre tant de la part des compositeurs que du public. Pourtant, malgre un recul des creations, malgre le defi pose par l’heritage beethovenien et alors meme que le contexte musical favorise principalement la scene lyrique, une soixantaine de compositeurs continuent a s’interesser au domaine exclusivement instrumental de la symphonie et assurent le maintien d’un genre entre 1830 et la generation franckiste. Au-dela de son aspect historique, cette these vise a cerner les caracteristiques stylistiques de tout un ensemble d’œuvres, a les situer dans l’evolution d’un genre en les analysant a la fois par rapport aux normes viennoises, aux productions contemporaines germaniques et aux avancees plus generales du langage. Apres une premiere partie centree sur le contexte musical qui a vu naitre ces symphonies, les enjeux pedagogiques qu’elles suscitent et le role decisif des societes orchestrales, l’analyse entre au cœur des partitions dans une demarche comparative a la fois quantitative et qualitative, depuis l’agencement interne des plus petits elements musicaux jusqu’a la realisation de la grande forme. A travers l’observation des pratiques globales et individuelles qui concourent a une reevaluation des normes, a la refonte ponctuelle mais progressive des cadres, se degagent l’autonomie d’un genre par rapport a son modele germanique et la permanence d’une ecole symphonique francaise tout au long du XIXe siecle.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 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".